Log in

No account? Create an account
An author of no particular popularity

Jay Lake
Date: 2010-02-28 11:37
Subject: [links] Link salad runs and runs to catch up with the sun
Security: Public
Tags:culture, funny, healthcare, language, links, personal, politics, religion
How Not To Apologize — Cheryl Morgan on bad behavior. (Not the fun kind, I'm afraid.)

Fallen Princesses — Disney, the morning after... (Thanks to willyumtx.)

Light runners — Language, headlines and the social logic of recordings.

Obvious quacks: the tip of a scary medical iceberg

Right wing slams White House for meeting with atheist 'hate groups' — So let me get this straight. If you oppose Christianist bigotry, and support secular freedoms over the narrow, restrictive views of any particular religious sect, you're a 'hate group'? Got it, right. Check. This must be why I'm not a conservative. Such logic escapes me.

?otD: Is the sun really the same in a relative way?

Writing time yesterday: 60 minutes
Body movement: 45 minute suburban walk
Hours slept: 8.0 (slept poorly)
This morning's weigh-in: n/a (forgot to weight)
Yesterday's chemo stress index: 5/10
Currently reading: [between books]

Post A Comment | 3 Comments | | Flag | Link

Lady Jestocost
User: ladyjestocost
Date: 2010-02-28 23:35 (UTC)
Subject: Christianist Bigotry
Y'know, President Obama is the president of all of the people. I like a guy that remembers that. And as a Christian, I think it's the right thing for him to do.

Do the best you can for people and let God sort them out.
Reply | Thread | Link

Jay Lake
User: jaylake
Date: 2010-02-28 23:37 (UTC)
Subject: Re: Christianist Bigotry
That's the opposite of bigotry. Thank you.

(Atheists, like blondes and the overweight, are one of the few groups it's still perfectly okay to scorn and mock publicly these days.)
Reply | Parent | Thread | Link

User: (Anonymous)
Date: 2010-03-01 06:12 (UTC)
Subject: (no subject)
/bemusedoutsider here/

An item for you:

Climate danger "de-bunker" Lomborg de-bunked by Friel

This article also shows the problem with what I'd call too much granularity. The overall picture is clear: the danger-denier misrepresented many of his footnotes, therefore is not reliable.

But in a casual internet debate, deniers could quote from the bottom of the article which had some (small) criticisms of Friel. Back and forth, someone could appear to discredit Friel.
Reply | Thread | Link

my journal
January 2014
2012 appearances