Displaying 0 To 0 Of 0 Comments But did you know this? The LDS church technically says nothing about caffeine, just about certain ‘hot drinks’ – but that doesn’t include hot chocolate, which Mitt loves, and which has caffeine. Go fig. Mormons can drink caffeine? ‘Dew’ tell There’s apparently a joke that the difference between Mormons and non-Mormons is the temperature of their caffeine. » Posted By Khirad On January 11, 2012 @ 1:10 am Seriously? It’s a Republican-lean state, period. Nothing has changed. » Posted By Khirad On January 11, 2012 @ 12:25 am I’d almost forgotten about the great “bellwether” of Dixville Notch. » Posted By Khirad On January 10, 2012 @ 12:57 am
» Posted By Khirad On January 10, 2012 @ 12:54 am I know you’ve mentioned it before CL, but dang if I wish I hadn’t just spent a lot of my Christmas money, that book was cheaper than I thought it would be, but it’s still gonna have to be put on a list for later. In any case, never judge a book by its cover by I love the cover alone. It’s brilliant. » Posted By Khirad On January 9, 2012 @ 2:31 pm Wow, I went to the Army’s site. If I were using that site I’d know that they fought a war but be clueless on who they were even fighting! So it was more bias by omission than anything. I don’t think they were even making a serious attempt at history though. It was more just the Army of the Union’s legacy. » Posted By Khirad On January 9, 2012 @ 2:25 pm I generally hit and run, so no KQ. I just blockquoted it here instead. » Posted By Khirad On January 9, 2012 @ 2:14 pm As I recall, the Lost Cause romanticization began right after the war. I forget the names, but it was all about fate deprived us of victory, if only weren’t for the treachery and dishonor of the Yankees and their blockades, blah, blah, blah. All about chivalry and antebellum mythology. Even the League of the South website (I urge every Republican who accuses Democrats or liberals of being the “real racists” to see how many conservative points they line up with on that site) prefers British spelling for its ‘charm’ and ‘unbastardised’ authenticity. I mean, these are people living in their own ‘idealised’ and constructed history. Only then can you get happy black people working for free out the love for their masters who take good care of them. What’s a little churning and song for their ice cream social to show how grateful they are? But of course, I see Gone With The Wind as the apogee and true watermark of Lost Cause romanticization in the national consciousness. It succeeded where the Sons of the Confederacy and un-Reconstructed rebels, and Birth of a Nation failed. I see it as the ultimate propaganda. Or quaint movie. But it’s because it’s so quaint and unassuming that it is so pervasive. I hate to make it sound that dark and there’s nothing wrong with historical dramas which have a soft patina treatment and make-believe (there’s a whole Fantasy genre that’s taken off on this à la Ladyhawke, Princess Bride, Game of Thrones, etc.), but the important thing is to enjoy it as the fiction it is. Also, I do think young conservatives, though there may not be many, honestly believe things are racist which are. Like, they don’t get how Obama as a witch-doctor or terms like “boy” are racist. In a weird way this is positive almost. Not their ignorance, but that they don’t get the reference. I mean, they may advocated policies which negatively affect black people, or think they’re actually helping, even if it is completely misguided, but I think most of the genuine, stealth racism exists among the older conservatives, whether they were once Southern Democrat cum Republican or not. In any case. I do love when the League of the South calls the attack on the Confederate Battle Flag “cultural genocide.” I mean, it’s just so funny to hear them mix pity with virulent and thinly veiled bitterly belligerent sarcasm. And all I have to say about the “Democrat Party” being the party of the KKK is to look at an old electoral map of the “Solid South” and ask yourself: what party (minus West Virginia and Arkansas) represents that same exact (née Confederate) region now? When did that switch happen and why? I wonder if such a Socratic method might be more useful in countering such inane Rushbo memes. It would plant that seed if they really were ignorant of the Civil Rights Dixiecrat switch and Nixon’s Southern Strategy. I mean, I always thought it was disingenuous snark, but one person on Facebook seemed genuinely caught off guard when I brought up that historical fact. Next time I’d put it like this: Quite simply, did Jesse Helms and Strom Thurmond die Republicans or Democrats? What made them different from Southern Democrats that stayed and died with the party, like former Klansman Senator Byrd which you like bringing up? » Posted By Khirad On January 8, 2012 @ 10:04 pm There was an article on Yahoo! about Southern Civil War museums trying to cope with dwindling visitors over the decades and how they have to modernize both with the basics of keeping them running and installing handicap accessibility and with the very tone of the exhibits themselves. Of course this drove out the latent neo-Confederate and hardcore Deo Vindice crowd whom interpreted it to be an affront of liberal political correctness and insinuating Confederate flags would be taken down or some such nonsense, as if there aren’t even Nazi flags in museums fer chrissakes. I don’t know what got into me, but since we’ve been over the subject many times here I belted this out rather quickly. I wouldn’t be surprised if it’s already hidden due to so many thumbs down. I went to the Museum of the Confederacy in Richmond. They were trying and making an effort, but there was still a bit too much glorifying and “white-washing” of history. But again, I do think they were trying to change to a more objective view, but the careful, nuanced wording of a few things was ‘interesting’. In any case, I found it authentic and a living museum of Southern sentiment and perspective, if not all contextualized properly in a national and broad historical sense. A lot of people complaining about political correctness have it upside down. It’s rather the old nostalgic propaganda that needs to come to terms with the actual history. I’m part Southern with Confederate roots, but the right side won. The 10th Amendment argument is bunk, I encourage you to look up and read the CSA Constitution, which ironically almost had more federal control, even though the states failed to ever comply. There was only one states’ right the founders of the CSA were interested in: the states’ rights to own slaves. And that was about it (okay some stuff about water lanes too). Also, you’d be hard-pressed to find a more aristocratic and elite crowd than the statesmen of the Confederacy, who sent the poor farmers to bleed for their riches. Thus, I find those that look back wistfully on the “Lost Cause” romantic rebels at best. Thousands upon thousands of people were sent to slaughter over their treason. Even Jefferson Davis’ wife, Varina, thought it was a bad idea from the beginning. No false equivalencies of racism in the North, federalism, atrocities of Sherman’s March (of which my ancestors in Georgia had tales) or any other lame deflection can detract from the prime responsibility of devastation going to the South which could have averted the crisis. But it didn’t. And it got decisively crushed. I mean decimated beyond question. I mean, we’ve fought the war over a lot of the issues cropping up again now in political discourse, and those ideas, first discredited by the failure of the Articles of Confederation, and then by the very dysfunction of the CSA itself (irrespective of the Union), should provide enough evidence, but if they don’t, do we need another crushing war to drive the point home as a little reminder? What I should have added is that I DO think it will be sad if they have to shut down or artifacts aren’t kept preserved. I can’t speak to the Louisiana one or Jefferson Davis’ museum in Alabama, but the Museum of the Confederacy was (deliberately in my view) straddling the line and borderline creepy. Whatever the interpretation though, I do think there is worth of preserving museums of the Civil War in the South focused on the Confederacy. The problem of course is that they are often state-run and become battlegrounds for revisionism and glorification and are by their very nature sensitive. Nevertheless, the common complaint in comments was that history doesn’t change because of political correctness. There’s a point there, though inappropriately applied in this instance. I too hate when things are done just as feel-good salves for modern mores. But the point here is more about correcting the lingering romanticism which keeps the Lost Cause alive in the imagination of many Southerners and Libertarian conservatives alike (non-Southern Republicans love the disingenuous argument of One-Party Democratic rule in the South, so I like throwing the conservative thing back at them, as that was the underlying constant). Just don’t mention the part where the CSA was just as Federalistic, and for a Libertarian, was quite adamant you were Christian and had as many restrictive laws to offend your idea of unfettered, free-for-all “Liberty” as the Union. If you’ve ever mucked through TPer and Libertarian YouTube videos, I’ve seen many that use the South’s argument that Lincoln was a Tyrant, that even the Lincoln Memorial is some sort of extravagant ‘N***** temple’ and the like. I find that ironic when Glenn Beck tried to claim pro-Labor, anti-War, quasi-Socialist Dr. King as a conservative in front of the Lincoln Memorial. I think that was his jump-the-shark moment even for his audience. » Posted By Khirad On January 8, 2012 @ 7:31 pm Photos: Jan. 8 shooting anniversary events » Posted By Khirad On January 8, 2012 @ 7:09 pm Karma. Pittsburgh had it coming. » Posted By Khirad On January 8, 2012 @ 7:08 pm Who knew? Imbedded also a perfectly acceptable spelling of embedded. Hmmmph. Well, that was my ‘teachable moment’ of today. » Posted By Khirad On January 8, 2012 @ 5:26 pm And I still find the others just as insulting. That they realize how painful it will be for seniors so they’ll phase it out. Oh wow, thanks. So there’s a grace period for those already on SS, but future seniors? You can suck it! I will give it to Rick. He’s either really stupid or really standing on principle (or both) on this. But I at least appreciate doing away with that pandering bullshit to the current SS recipients. That was always so disingenuous–they realize what side their bread is buttered on. Old people vote. Damn, just imagine what third rails could be if young people voted like that! 😉 » Posted By Khirad On January 8, 2012 @ 2:18 am I love White Russians. Or Black Russians. I don’t discriminate. 😉 » Posted By Khirad On January 7, 2012 @ 9:38 pm It is weird, considering this is one of the biggest decisions of his whole presidency thus far. » Posted By Khirad On January 7, 2012 @ 2:18 pm I surely can’t be the first to post this, but worth the time, even including the “commercials”— Funny or Die GOP Internet Cyber Debate » Posted By Khirad On January 7, 2012 @ 3:39 am Holy crap! Santorum yearbook photo: http://www.dailyherald.com/article/20120105/news/701059956/ » Posted By Khirad On January 6, 2012 @ 9:57 pm Finally something good on BBC America to look forward to. Ever since the Office, Coupling and Monarch of the Glen, there hasn’t been any real worthwhile recent programming for me outside my brief guilty pleasure of Robin Hood (aka Lucy Griffiths’ hotness spectacular) and Torchwood, which doesn’t take quite the effort and dedication to get into as Doctor Who (old and new) does. » Posted By Khirad On January 6, 2012 @ 7:46 pm My favorite comment. And this is no disrespect to Tolkien, but I thought it was hilarious:
savale At readings of works in progress in an Oxford pub, where both Tolkein and C.S. Lewis taught at the University, Tolkein would regularly read out new chapters of Lord of the Rings. It is said that even the godly C.S Lewis got so bored one evening that he was heard muttering from the back: “Not another fucking elf!”. I’m with Lewis and the Nobel committee.
» Posted By Khirad On January 6, 2012 @ 6:16 pm I’d give him a Nobel for fantasy linguistics. Dude was a genius at synthesizing and creating new langs and writing systems. » Posted By Khirad On January 6, 2012 @ 6:13 pm He refuses to sign it, threatens to resign, takes a stand, whatever. Veto still gets overridden by Congress anyway you slice it. Hooray. You just rubbed one out ’cause it felt good, but it otherwise accomplished absolutely nothing. It’s a no win, and all about ameliorating as much damage as one can while living another day to try and rectify it. » Posted By Khirad On January 4, 2012 @ 9:17 pm Some guys look older than others, but in a picture with beard he looked late 20s to early 30s. And she was 18… or was she..? In any case, it kinda marred the whole feel-good story for me with a feeling of eww. » Posted By Khirad On January 4, 2012 @ 6:43 pm Just lost her husband to cancer on Christmas (and how old was he?). Two guys trying to get in, yeah, shoot. …although, how come it never ends with holding the trespasser at gunpoint until police arrive? Or is that too TV? Like, stop right there, and tell 911 where you are. I don’t know, maybe you’re so scared and threatened that it feels like your only option. Fine then. But sometimes, sometimes I just wonder. In any case, the real lesson here is to never mess with a momma. » Posted By Khirad On January 4, 2012 @ 6:29 pm So help me out on this, ’cause I think I’m disappointed with Jon Stewart, who is expressing a sentiment I see widely among liberal blogs. In fact, I even got a petition request from Amnesty International, not only blaming the president for this, but not closing Guantánamo, as well! The NDAA bill that allows indefinite detention of even US citizens (well, not mostly, actually) is of course alarming, even if the actual text of the bill isn’t as broad-reaching as most tones of alarmism obfuscate. But Obama does a signing statement, saying the ambiguous language should not seek to detain citizens. Still not good enough, he should have vetoed it! Ah, but it was passed with a veto-proof majority. This ‘principled act’ would have amounted to political masturbation that just leaves you more tired. So next you could argue process. Like, maybe a second time a couple Democrats would do their best to maneuver and change the troubling parts of the bill. Or you could make arguments of the original sausage-making process. But it’s all woulda-coulda-shouldas. Maybe you argue he should have corralled Democrats better and told those that supported the provisions he thought it was unacceptable. Point is, Obama was doing the best he could with a really shitty situation. The blame is on Congress. And do you think he should act like the Unitary Executive; what we complained about under Bush for eight years? We didn’t elect a dictator, the other two co-equal branches of government still exist. This so many times comes down to who you think Obama is himself. Those who are to ascribe these caves down to the belief he really isn’t liberal, and those who believe Obama is still the same person he was as a Senator and candidate. In other words, I ask this: If bills came before his desk from a Progressive-majority Congress federally legalizing gay marriage (okay, maybe this is more of a state thing, I dunno), closing Guantánamo and raising taxes on the rich, etc., you don’t think he’d sign it? Maybe he wouldn’t be as into regulating Wall Street quite as much as you want, or pulling out of Afghanistan as fast as you want, but on the others, I don’t have reason to question his sincerity. I know that sounds naïve, but I don’t see much evidence he’s gone out of his way to want all the crap that has arisen. To think so he’d have to be doing it all in conjunction with Republicans. Your conspiracy theory says he’s secretly a Republican. That makes you like a Birther. You can also be somewhere in between and perhaps think he’s made mistakes and maybe even caved too much, not been out there thumping the GOP enough, etc., but I find a lot of criticism of him more a reflection of frustrations with the messy reality of governing–in which he’s the easiest target. So is that what we have here, or am I missing something where he really is responsible for putting in the provisions that allow for detaining US citizens. Like did Panetta or Petraeus slip it in there? Someone from the President’s office? » Posted By Khirad On January 4, 2012 @ 3:43 pm Yahoo sidebar poll: Does Kim Kardashian deserve to be targeted by tax-hike proponents? Yes, it’s unfair she pays so little. —— 81% No, she didn’t make the tax rules. —— 19% This is actually a brilliant way to put it. They have “job creator” we have “Kardashian”. » Posted By Khirad On January 4, 2012 @ 1:36 pm Dayyum. I’m the only one who liked this. » Posted By Khirad On January 4, 2012 @ 10:26 am Ha, win! Good call. » Posted By Khirad On January 4, 2012 @ 10:23 am Gregoire expected to back same-sex marriage Gov. Chris Gregoire is slated to declare her support for same-sex marriage on Wednesday morning before a gathering of marriage equality supporters in Olympia. » Posted By Khirad On January 4, 2012 @ 12:30 am All I could see was a J Crew ad with that family, minus the token black guy. [img]http://4.bp.blogspot.com/_3E0IIOjAHPs/Sfs3HhGY1DI/AAAAAAAADXk/pKAjNYwry2I/s1600/FriendsFamily.JPG[img] » Posted By Khirad On January 4, 2012 @ 12:24 am Indeed, now we shall see carnage. If Gingrich goes down in flames, he’s gonna burn Romney on his descent first. » Posted By Khirad On January 3, 2012 @ 10:37 pmComments Posted By Khirad
http://www.sltrib.com/sltrib/politics/52615759-90/church-caffeine-dew-jorgensen.html.csp
http://azstarnet.com/news/local/photos-jan-shooting-anniversary-events/collection_019822a2-3a52-11e1-a8c0-0019bb2963f4.html
http://news.yahoo.com/cyber-debate-parody-funny-or-die/
6 January 2012 06:19PM
http://blog.seattlepi.com/seattlepolitics/2012/01/03/gregoire-expected-to-back-same-sex-marriage/
«« Back To Stats Page
Home Stats