Log in

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

Jay Lake
Date: 2010-09-28 05:29
Subject: [links] Link salad wonders if sometimes words have two meanings
Security: Public
Tags:art, cancer, cool, healthcare, links, personal, politics, science
Fight Cancer WPA Poster — Huh. Who knew?

Patients to be frozen into state of suspended animation for surgeryPatients are to be placed into a state of suspended animation when they undergo surgery by using a ground breaking technique that freezes their bodies to the point of death. (Via gizmodo.com.)

Time Likely To End Within Earth's Lifespan, Say PhysicistsThere is a 50 per cent chance that time will end within the next 3.7 billion years, according to a new model of the universe.

[WV Republican Senate candidate] Raese Wants To Go Back To 'Capitalism The Way It Should Be' — Before Child Labor Laws — I especially like this bit: I made my money the old-fashioned way. I Inherited it.

Tea Party Fakers? Dems Blamed For Co-Opting 'Tea Party' Label To Split Conservative Vote — This is fricking ridiculous. Such tactics only serve to make the Democrats as morally and intellectually bankrupt as the Republicans. (Which is admittedly not a surprising outcome.) Note to President Obama: I'd like a real political party, please. One with principles and integrity.

?otD: Is there a bustle in your hedgerow?

Writing time yesterday: n/a (post-op haze)
Body movement: Moderate suburban walking (post-op haze)
Hours slept: 9.25 (solid)
This morning's weigh-in: 234.6
Yesterday's chemo/post-op stress index: 5/10 (post-op pain, fatigue, peripheral neuropathy)
Currently (re)reading: I Shall Wear Midnight by Terry Pratchett

Post A Comment | 10 Comments | | Flag | Link

User: joycemocha
Date: 2010-09-28 12:59 (UTC)
Subject: (no subject)
Actually, if I were still in the political game, you bet your sweet bippy I'd be running at least the rumor of co-opted Tea Party candidates. Groups like that (on Right and Left sides both) tend to see infiltrators both real and imagined. With a group like the Tea Party, it's easy enough to kick them off into an internal paranoid feeding frenzy without a heck of a lot of effort. Realistically, there's a lot of disaffected conservative Democrats out there who've probably affiliated with the Tea Party legitimately, so if the Tea Party starts up a witch hunt focusing on those Ds, they'll cook their own goose and more solidly identify themselves as Republicans.

If we both make it to Fat Straw tonight, I can talk on the subject further, if you're interested. I do see it as a legitimate strategy, and one that's pretty effortless to pull off.
Reply | Thread | Link

User: andelku
Date: 2010-09-28 18:47 (UTC)
Subject: (no subject)
You know it strikes me as what Rahm Emmanuel would think of.
Reply | Parent | Thread | Link

User: joycemocha
Date: 2010-09-28 23:17 (UTC)
Subject: (no subject)
And that's a problem--how?

I'm sorry, but after spending many years as a political activist in the Democratic party (Now. Retired. Emphatically. Except for being a union person), I'm hopeful that they at least have moved toward the politics of pragmatism instead of the politics of ideology. I have seen far too many Democrats killed by ideological purity demands in intraparty politics to appreciate it any more. It used to be that the Republicans were the party of the pragmatic...well, if they want to insist on kicking out every voice of moderation and insist on nuking every moderate Republican by calling them Republicans In Name Only, then bloody well let them, I say.

And if a stealth campaign meant to provoke the paranoid style within the Tea Party/Republican campaigns brings on a conflagration within the Republicans/Tea Party? So be it.

Besides, that's not a Rahn Emanuel tactic. It's a classic Dick Tuck tactic, although he'd find a humorous twist to apply to it.
Reply | Parent | Thread | Link

User: ulfhirtha
Date: 2010-09-28 20:16 (UTC)
Subject: (no subject)
And a flip-side of the GOP setting up Green Party candidates.

I'm shocked, shocked I tell you, that the Democrats have decided to fight fire with fire after being rolled 22 of the past 30 years.
Reply | Parent | Thread | Link

Jay Lake
User: jaylake
Date: 2010-09-28 20:17 (UTC)
Subject: (no subject)
My point being it's reprehensible when the GOP does it, why is it any less reprehensible for the Dems to do it?
Reply | Parent | Thread | Link

User: joycemocha
Date: 2010-09-28 23:30 (UTC)
Subject: (no subject)
When it comes to applied, practical politics, one needs to note the differences between the "shocked, shocked, I tell you!" responses meant to provoke the outsiders (while winking at each other within closed circles) and the truly reprehensible.

Yes, I'm wearing my former political professional hat in this discussion. This does not trigger my outrage. It's legitimate tactics. I have an entire rant about how forcing purity of ideology litmus tests into politics has ended up creating a more divisive, less collaborative political process. While there were problems with the older style, there were also more opportunities for moderate voices to insert themselves into the party machinery and engage in collaboration and cooperation on important governmental processes. We have lost that in the last fifteen years, and along the way, impaired the functioning of effective governmental structures. I look at how the Oregon Legislature functions now, and compare it to what it was like back when I was actively working within politics, and what I see missing are situations where the Socialist (Wally Priestley) that I interned with was nonetheless highly regarded and respected by his conservative Republican colleagues (and the respect and cooperation was mutual). I do not see that these days.

So as far as I'm concerned, if the structure's that fragile, then I see no issues with lending a helping hand. I've been in those paranoid style political organizations. If they're sufficiently fragile to be concerned about the purity of their participants, then they're dysfunctional and perhaps need to learn a few lessons. And yep, I say that as someone who got burned by the whole process, and learned that you know, there's a time and a place for ideology...and it ain't necessarily in the activist trenches.

Do I have standards and lines in the sand? You bet. Am I going to complain when it's my ox getting gored? Oh yeah.

But the whole process is an intricate chess game, and there's legitimate gaming of the system, and then there's dirty tricks that go beyond the pale. What I'm seeing of this is not necessarily beyond the pale.
Reply | Parent | Thread | Link

Hugh Casey: Pogo - Enemy quote
User: hughcasey
Date: 2010-09-28 14:25 (UTC)
Subject: (no subject)
Keyword:Pogo - Enemy quote
"I'd like a real political party, please. One with principles and integrity."

Honestly, political and principles and integrity are mutually exclusive. I say this as someone who was been involved in political organizations. And I'm not being facetious.

The entire point to politics is to ensure that your ideology wins. Period. Because the other ideology is WRONG, and it will ruin society if it wins. Principles and integrity limit your options and get in the way of winning, so they're jettisoned immediately.

This way of thinking is why my involvement in organized politics is now in the past tense...
Reply | Thread | Link

User: joycemocha
Date: 2010-09-28 23:33 (UTC)
Subject: (no subject)
Well written, sir.

And what you cite is one reason why I rarely participate in organized politics. While I'm involved in my local teacher's union, I'm also shocked and amazed at the lack of political sophistication present. Things have changed, seriously changed, from what they used to be like.
Reply | Parent | Thread | Link

Max Kaehn: Science!
User: slothman
Date: 2010-09-28 17:26 (UTC)
Subject: (no subject)
The physics article is perplexing; the cosmos has never been and will never be infinite. I wonder if they’re just getting preapproval for an April 1 publication?
Reply | Thread | Link

User: bemused_leftist
Date: 2010-09-30 00:12 (UTC)
Subject: (no subject)
[ A little pre-emptive debunking here, I hope. Scrolling through lightly these days to protect my blood pressure. ]

On last night’s episode, Burke addressed the reports while speaking to Grey and Hough backstage again. “There was a little bit of controversy in the ballroom last night,” she told them. “When you got your scores from the judges everyone was booing. Now, the press reported that they were booing for Sarah Palin, but I have a clip to show you. It was never intended to air so it is raw and unedited but it will show us what actually happened.”

The clip showed the judges delivering their scores of eight each as the audience booed their decision. “They are booing an eight!” remarked Bruno Tonioli, while Carrie Ann Inaba said: “[An eight] is good… They are yelling at us!” Bergeron could then be heard introducing Palin in the background as the boos were replaced by applause.

“It’s flattering, that’s an awesome response if anything, to get booed for getting a lower score than they wanted. We were very happy with it,” said Hough. Grey added: “I’m thrilled with eights!”

Bergeron then joked that Palin had been “surprised” by the controversy because she had been booing the judges as well.

Video from Monday night’s show:

Reply | Thread | Link

my journal
January 2014
2012 appearances