Yes, where will we ever find American intellectuals writing cutting magazine articles like this one?
Seriously though, while I totally agree, we're totally fucked, but what is the real, practical advice this author, presumed member of an "authentic" European left, provides? "try to ponder the lessons of the totalitarian century and those of democracy, Tocqueville-style, all at once, in the same breath, and with the same rigor." Yeah, that'll solve the problem that I'm fucking surrounded by people that are dumb as dirt.
If he received $1,000,000 in donations, and spent a total 15 seconds chewing each piece of gum, he would have to chew gum continuously, eight hours a day, for nearly a year and a half. God, what a year of hell it would be. It would be a major piece of industry to manage chewing a million pieces of gum, let alone assembling the wad, keeping up the blog, and collecting the money.
Not to worry, if he ever makes more than a couple hundred dollars (an outrageously generous estimate in my opinion) I'll eat my hat and not charge you a nickel.
As for the IRS, basically he's doing business as a sole proprieter. It's just income, he'd have to file like any self-employed person. Like anybody with a tip jar on their blog, as long as he stays insignificant he could probably dodge it but if it got famous enough to be worth anything it would obviously get him looked at.
I'm not trying to be contrary, Mr. Knickerbocker, just curious... how do you think an issue like this case (and the others you describe) should be resolved? Currently, things allowed by the state, i.e. public school curriculums, abortion, which drugs are legal and in what contexts, etc. are defined by the law and the final interpreters of law are judges (under the American system anyway)
I mean, how do you propose "doctors, scientists, and educators" should be dictating these laws? Do you think that their should be a group of specialist judges, or do you think there should be no laws about these things, or what?
A side note, I heard on public radio this afternoon that Judge Jones was a G.W. Bush appointee.
>I would think a genuinely scientific approach to this whole debate would be to lock evolution and ID in a room and have them battle it out
That is exactly what occurred in this court case. Notable proponents of Creationism were allowed to present their best case for the inclusion of ID in the science curriculum. They had no case and they lost because they were wrong. I'm a Christian, I'll note, a devout and active one, and I applaud this decision. I'll handle my child's religious instruction at home, thank you very much. Some people seem to forget that separating the church and the state is as much about protecting religion from state influence as vice versa.
You have to realize that you don't have any real control over what she decides is the reason why you are leaving her: she's going to believe what she wants to, particularly in the emotional furor of the actual breakup, so your primary concern should not be convincing her that it is this thing or that thing.
If your goal is to minimize cruelty, then your primary strategy should be to do it as soon as possible and without equivocation. Right now she's obviously fishing for confirmation of what she already (accurately) senses, that you are getting ready to jettison her. Every time you deny her claims you are creating a false impression. You can tell yourself that you're being honest, i.e. you don't think she is crazy. But you're lying about the real crux of the issue in that you do want to break up with her.
So do it now, do it in person (with vanishingly few exceptions, only true bastards and filthy cowards break up any other way), tell her that you aren't in love with her and have realized you never will be. Just simply deny anything she counters with. If she says it is because you're crazy, say I don't think you're crazy and leave it at that. Try to avoid being drawn out into any territory that suggests any possibility of hope. Just keep saying I just don't feel the way I know I would have to to be truly happy in a relationship, get out as soon as you can. You can't change the way she thinks about herself, it isn't your job to do so, and later this evening (if you have the guts) it will be none of your business.
Is anyone actually numbskulled enough to believe this is even possibly real? Everytime something like this gets posted anywhere I wonder the same thing: how stupid are you? Everybody who wondered if the Blair Witch Project might actually be real: how stupid are you? Anyone who thought somebody was actually bonsaiing kittens: how stupid are you!? Anybody who believed that a snapshot was retrieved of somebody standing on top of the world trade center while the first plane was coming in: how stupid are you? How stupid ARE people?!
That's a picture of a regular old Stunmaster 100-S stun gun with "Bratzapper" photoshopped over where the StunMaster logo usually is and Teen/Tot settings added. Teen/Tot settings! I'm not an expert on stun guns. It took less than a minute of research to find the exact model. How the hell stupid are you?
the fact is that when you chose to have children, no one hounds you with questions, concerns, and outright denials of the validity of your decision. (well, I would, but I am obnoxious that way.)
Annoying thing number one about every one of these sites I've perused is people saying "I'm just asking for people to respect my decisions" and then displaying utter respect for others. Calling children sprogs, mothers moos, talking smack about "breeders" and "spawning..." Yes, you certainly have a lot to teach me about respecting the opinions of others. Am I the only one who gets the feeling that 99% of this venom basically begins and ends with the fact that these individuals are being mercilessly hounded by their family members? Listen, I'm real sorry gramma won't stop busting your chops about makin' babies but it's NOT my problem.
personally find the desire to have children UTTERLY foreign, incomprehensible and sickening
the other thing that annoys me about a lot of the child-free types is they act like they're seizing some kind of moral high ground in their decision not to contribute to overpopulation or whatever, when in fact they just don't want kids. Which is fine, great, super, superb, I wish everybody who didn't truly want children would decide thusly - but get off the high horse about saving the planet. Its not the REAL reason you aren't having children.
I don't know if my story fits your premise, but my worst job experience was at a small, liberal non-profit think tank which worked on issues of local community self-reliance. This is not a knee-jerk reaction to the politics - I shared and share their principles. But the working environment was horrible. The president was a driven, monomaniacal workaholic and he expected just that from his staff. The organization was his baby and though it had a governance board, they were all hand-picked and he and another cofounder ran the show. They worked me ragged for very shoddy compensation and there was little employee support of any sort. I was a wreck when I quit and long refused to take any kind of long term job, doing 1-3 month temp jobs below my level of ability for 2.5 years just for the relief of being able to leave forever on a regular basis. You may contact me if you like.
Last time I had a project like this I shopped around the local screen printers (just look up printing in the yellow pages) and came up with a pretty good deal for a relatively small scale (a couple hundred shirts). A good shop will have the knowledge to do what you want and will probably be able to get you a deal on the shirts as well. Things to watch for - the setup charge. Make sure you know if they are going to prep the artwork for you, shoot it, do color separation if necessary, and what all that will cost. It is a one-time cost (be sure they will clean, and store your screens for you when the project is done, they can be reused many times) but it tends to be high compared to pulling actual prints. In one case I outsourced the prep on a complex piece and it was a better deal than the printer's charge. Find out what their policy is on rejects, printers do not necessarily eat the cost of bad prints in a run, but their policies should be reasonable and account for their error. Find out what the volume discounts are, consider your needs (I have, yes, a couple boxes of one ill-conceived or perhaps just poorly marketed t-shirts that have been lurking in my basement waiting for me to get off my can and do something about it for about 5 years), etc.
My opinion is that in many cases, people overestimate how much print-on-demand stuff costs compared to DIY or outsourcing to volume-oriented pros. Often the set-up and volume requirements are lower than they expect so it's worth a little research, with sample art and specs any good printer should give you a decent ballpark on a range of options.
Others have noted screen printing yourself is not that hard. It's not. But it takes time, takes spacem it has a learning curve, and its messy. If you like DIY and are good with the mechanical it can be done. But you may have problems actually making the screen for anything that's not simple, and multi-color processes of course multiply the complications and potential errors, so take all that into account. You can get screens made and then keep them and use them yourself. If you go this route - KEEP YOUR SCREENS CLEAN. If you let the ink dry on them they're usually ruined and you're out the setup.
Said it before and I'll say it again: around 75% of Americans self-identify as Christians. I don't have my panties in a bunch over this one... and the reactions of Worldnet and Free Republic, the only cited sources of reaction, don't say a lot about who might. But blaming this election on Christians is getting very stale. The facts that it is inaccurate and has no chance of doing any benefit for the prospects of future rectification of our current imbalance of government power ought to be enough to convince anyone who actually gives a rat's ass about changing things to give it a rest. Which makes me wonder what a lot of people are really trying to accomplish.
Is there anyone reading this who is actually blind to the fact that these general attacks on Christians, along with all the South bashing, red-state bashing, and rural bashing, is playing directly into the strategy of the current GOP? That more than one or a few particular issues, the biggest play they're getting is out of the sense of division and separation a host of issues and buzzwords and pandering creates?
Try this one on for size: maybe instead of having a wry chuckle at taking the vote away from Christians, we should all be having a serious conversation about taking the power away from the incompetents running the DNC. The Democratic Party lost this election.
While I think it's worthwhile to examine the use of antidepressants, and particularly when they are prescribed under less than ideal conditions (I saw a commercial about a sad little ball that lost all interest in bugs! Can you prescribe me a sample with little or no interview of my actual condition?), the whole "keep taking your stupid pills while you poison your brain with reality teevee" response is not discussion. I lived with untreated depression for over two decades, and Paxil has simply and plainly improved my quality of life. Far from shutting off my emotions, it has contributed to my becoming more open to them and to welcoming greater attachments to my loved ones because I am not so insulated by depression and prone to withdraw from situations with a potential for emotional distress.
I chose to introduce chemicals after several years of talk therapy and with the additional advice of a psychiatrist (a second professional from my therapist, a psychologist). When I choose to go off it, I will develop a plan with the same professionals and if there are after-effects, I will deal with them. From the reading and research I've done they seem an acceptable price for the benefits I've experienced.
The way drugs are marketed and sold and the recalcitrance of drug companies to publicize possible side-effects unless they are basically forced to is a whole big issue, but it is far from unique to anti-depressants. Of course my anectdotal experience is no more universal than anyone's, but it's worth noting that, for example, the City Page's article was overwhelmingly based on anectdotes. I do notice that a lot of people who talk about having problems coming off something chose, for their own reasons, to make the decision and do it without professional input. Taking medications is serious business and it should be treated as such.
Did anyone else feel sorta sick just looking at this thing?
I mean, I don't want to ban it or anything, and I like me a cheeseburger as much as (I thought) the next guy. But the whole bar-n-grill tendency to serve up SINGLE 1/3 pound patties is a bit much for me and this is... just... gross.
It seems a little ridiculous to talk about how "Christians" tip. 70-80 percent of Americans (for instance) self-identify as Christians (yes, I'm one of them, or rather I accept the social label of Christian as a convenient shorthand for y'all), so generalizations are pretty suspect. Given Christ's biblical injunctions against self-display in religious matters, is it so surprising that a particular subset who are so readily identifiable as "Christians" and so prone to displays of "loud" religiosity (i.e. giving tracts to strangers) also appear to fall short of Christian ideals in being, for lack of a better term, cheap bastards?
I don't need anyone's approval, permission, or justification, my feelings aren't easily hurt, and I understand that there are subsets of Christianity (as is the case with every ideology, religion, political affiliation, whatever) who are extremely difficult to tolerate. But I continue to find it worthwhile to point out that when people start talking smack about "Christians" they are tarring with a brush that covers 7-8 out of ten individuals they might happen to meet of a given day.
Yes, where will we ever find American intellectuals writing cutting magazine articles like this one? Seriously though, while I totally agree, we're totally fucked, but what is the real, practical advice this author, presumed member of an "authentic" European left, provides? "try to ponder the lessons of the totalitarian century and those of democracy, Tocqueville-style, all at once, in the same breath, and with the same rigor." Yeah, that'll solve the problem that I'm fucking surrounded by people that are dumb as dirt.
posted by nanojath 18 years ago
In "Gumwad"
If he received $1,000,000 in donations, and spent a total 15 seconds chewing each piece of gum, he would have to chew gum continuously, eight hours a day, for nearly a year and a half. God, what a year of hell it would be. It would be a major piece of industry to manage chewing a million pieces of gum, let alone assembling the wad, keeping up the blog, and collecting the money. Not to worry, if he ever makes more than a couple hundred dollars (an outrageously generous estimate in my opinion) I'll eat my hat and not charge you a nickel. As for the IRS, basically he's doing business as a sole proprieter. It's just income, he'd have to file like any self-employed person. Like anybody with a tip jar on their blog, as long as he stays insignificant he could probably dodge it but if it got famous enough to be worth anything it would obviously get him looked at.
posted by nanojath 18 years ago
In "Newsfilter: Judge rules Intelligent Design not acceptable in Pa. Biology Curriculum"
I'm not trying to be contrary, Mr. Knickerbocker, just curious... how do you think an issue like this case (and the others you describe) should be resolved? Currently, things allowed by the state, i.e. public school curriculums, abortion, which drugs are legal and in what contexts, etc. are defined by the law and the final interpreters of law are judges (under the American system anyway) I mean, how do you propose "doctors, scientists, and educators" should be dictating these laws? Do you think that their should be a group of specialist judges, or do you think there should be no laws about these things, or what?
posted by nanojath 18 years ago
A side note, I heard on public radio this afternoon that Judge Jones was a G.W. Bush appointee. >I would think a genuinely scientific approach to this whole debate would be to lock evolution and ID in a room and have them battle it out That is exactly what occurred in this court case. Notable proponents of Creationism were allowed to present their best case for the inclusion of ID in the science curriculum. They had no case and they lost because they were wrong. I'm a Christian, I'll note, a devout and active one, and I applaud this decision. I'll handle my child's religious instruction at home, thank you very much. Some people seem to forget that separating the church and the state is as much about protecting religion from state influence as vice versa.
posted by nanojath 18 years ago
In ""
You have to realize that you don't have any real control over what she decides is the reason why you are leaving her: she's going to believe what she wants to, particularly in the emotional furor of the actual breakup, so your primary concern should not be convincing her that it is this thing or that thing. If your goal is to minimize cruelty, then your primary strategy should be to do it as soon as possible and without equivocation. Right now she's obviously fishing for confirmation of what she already (accurately) senses, that you are getting ready to jettison her. Every time you deny her claims you are creating a false impression. You can tell yourself that you're being honest, i.e. you don't think she is crazy. But you're lying about the real crux of the issue in that you do want to break up with her. So do it now, do it in person (with vanishingly few exceptions, only true bastards and filthy cowards break up any other way), tell her that you aren't in love with her and have realized you never will be. Just simply deny anything she counters with. If she says it is because you're crazy, say I don't think you're crazy and leave it at that. Try to avoid being drawn out into any territory that suggests any possibility of hope. Just keep saying I just don't feel the way I know I would have to to be truly happy in a relationship, get out as soon as you can. You can't change the way she thinks about herself, it isn't your job to do so, and later this evening (if you have the guts) it will be none of your business.
posted by nanojath 18 years ago
In "BRATZAPPER: The high-tech electrical way to discipline children"
Is anyone actually numbskulled enough to believe this is even possibly real? Everytime something like this gets posted anywhere I wonder the same thing: how stupid are you? Everybody who wondered if the Blair Witch Project might actually be real: how stupid are you? Anyone who thought somebody was actually bonsaiing kittens: how stupid are you!? Anybody who believed that a snapshot was retrieved of somebody standing on top of the world trade center while the first plane was coming in: how stupid are you? How stupid ARE people?! That's a picture of a regular old Stunmaster 100-S stun gun with "Bratzapper" photoshopped over where the StunMaster logo usually is and Teen/Tot settings added. Teen/Tot settings! I'm not an expert on stun guns. It took less than a minute of research to find the exact model. How the hell stupid are you?
posted by nanojath 19 years ago
In "Ooops I Forgot to Have a Baby!"
the fact is that when you chose to have children, no one hounds you with questions, concerns, and outright denials of the validity of your decision. (well, I would, but I am obnoxious that way.) Annoying thing number one about every one of these sites I've perused is people saying "I'm just asking for people to respect my decisions" and then displaying utter respect for others. Calling children sprogs, mothers moos, talking smack about "breeders" and "spawning..." Yes, you certainly have a lot to teach me about respecting the opinions of others. Am I the only one who gets the feeling that 99% of this venom basically begins and ends with the fact that these individuals are being mercilessly hounded by their family members? Listen, I'm real sorry gramma won't stop busting your chops about makin' babies but it's NOT my problem. personally find the desire to have children UTTERLY foreign, incomprehensible and sickening the other thing that annoys me about a lot of the child-free types is they act like they're seizing some kind of moral high ground in their decision not to contribute to overpopulation or whatever, when in fact they just don't want kids. Which is fine, great, super, superb, I wish everybody who didn't truly want children would decide thusly - but get off the high horse about saving the planet. Its not the REAL reason you aren't having children.
posted by nanojath 20 years ago
In "Curious George: Bad Times in the Workplace:"
I don't know if my story fits your premise, but my worst job experience was at a small, liberal non-profit think tank which worked on issues of local community self-reliance. This is not a knee-jerk reaction to the politics - I shared and share their principles. But the working environment was horrible. The president was a driven, monomaniacal workaholic and he expected just that from his staff. The organization was his baby and though it had a governance board, they were all hand-picked and he and another cofounder ran the show. They worked me ragged for very shoddy compensation and there was little employee support of any sort. I was a wreck when I quit and long refused to take any kind of long term job, doing 1-3 month temp jobs below my level of ability for 2.5 years just for the relief of being able to leave forever on a regular basis. You may contact me if you like.
posted by nanojath 20 years ago
In "Curious, George: T Shirt Printing?"
Last time I had a project like this I shopped around the local screen printers (just look up printing in the yellow pages) and came up with a pretty good deal for a relatively small scale (a couple hundred shirts). A good shop will have the knowledge to do what you want and will probably be able to get you a deal on the shirts as well. Things to watch for - the setup charge. Make sure you know if they are going to prep the artwork for you, shoot it, do color separation if necessary, and what all that will cost. It is a one-time cost (be sure they will clean, and store your screens for you when the project is done, they can be reused many times) but it tends to be high compared to pulling actual prints. In one case I outsourced the prep on a complex piece and it was a better deal than the printer's charge. Find out what their policy is on rejects, printers do not necessarily eat the cost of bad prints in a run, but their policies should be reasonable and account for their error. Find out what the volume discounts are, consider your needs (I have, yes, a couple boxes of one ill-conceived or perhaps just poorly marketed t-shirts that have been lurking in my basement waiting for me to get off my can and do something about it for about 5 years), etc. My opinion is that in many cases, people overestimate how much print-on-demand stuff costs compared to DIY or outsourcing to volume-oriented pros. Often the set-up and volume requirements are lower than they expect so it's worth a little research, with sample art and specs any good printer should give you a decent ballpark on a range of options. Others have noted screen printing yourself is not that hard. It's not. But it takes time, takes spacem it has a learning curve, and its messy. If you like DIY and are good with the mechanical it can be done. But you may have problems actually making the screen for anything that's not simple, and multi-color processes of course multiply the complications and potential errors, so take all that into account. You can get screens made and then keep them and use them yourself. If you go this route - KEEP YOUR SCREENS CLEAN. If you let the ink dry on them they're usually ruined and you're out the setup.
posted by nanojath 20 years ago
In "Garrison Keillor thinks that born-again Christians should not be allowed to vote. "
Said it before and I'll say it again: around 75% of Americans self-identify as Christians. I don't have my panties in a bunch over this one... and the reactions of Worldnet and Free Republic, the only cited sources of reaction, don't say a lot about who might. But blaming this election on Christians is getting very stale. The facts that it is inaccurate and has no chance of doing any benefit for the prospects of future rectification of our current imbalance of government power ought to be enough to convince anyone who actually gives a rat's ass about changing things to give it a rest. Which makes me wonder what a lot of people are really trying to accomplish. Is there anyone reading this who is actually blind to the fact that these general attacks on Christians, along with all the South bashing, red-state bashing, and rural bashing, is playing directly into the strategy of the current GOP? That more than one or a few particular issues, the biggest play they're getting is out of the sense of division and separation a host of issues and buzzwords and pandering creates? Try this one on for size: maybe instead of having a wry chuckle at taking the vote away from Christians, we should all be having a serious conversation about taking the power away from the incompetents running the DNC. The Democratic Party lost this election.
posted by nanojath 20 years ago
In "Paxil Babies"
While I think it's worthwhile to examine the use of antidepressants, and particularly when they are prescribed under less than ideal conditions (I saw a commercial about a sad little ball that lost all interest in bugs! Can you prescribe me a sample with little or no interview of my actual condition?), the whole "keep taking your stupid pills while you poison your brain with reality teevee" response is not discussion. I lived with untreated depression for over two decades, and Paxil has simply and plainly improved my quality of life. Far from shutting off my emotions, it has contributed to my becoming more open to them and to welcoming greater attachments to my loved ones because I am not so insulated by depression and prone to withdraw from situations with a potential for emotional distress. I chose to introduce chemicals after several years of talk therapy and with the additional advice of a psychiatrist (a second professional from my therapist, a psychologist). When I choose to go off it, I will develop a plan with the same professionals and if there are after-effects, I will deal with them. From the reading and research I've done they seem an acceptable price for the benefits I've experienced. The way drugs are marketed and sold and the recalcitrance of drug companies to publicize possible side-effects unless they are basically forced to is a whole big issue, but it is far from unique to anti-depressants. Of course my anectdotal experience is no more universal than anyone's, but it's worth noting that, for example, the City Page's article was overwhelmingly based on anectdotes. I do notice that a lot of people who talk about having problems coming off something chose, for their own reasons, to make the decision and do it without professional input. Taking medications is serious business and it should be treated as such.
posted by nanojath 20 years ago
In "Random Frog Generator"
Hmm, I thought it would dish up frogs composed of random numbers of extra limbs ala many recent stories of alarming rates of frog deformity.
posted by nanojath 20 years ago
In "Hardee's is introducing a new burger with 1,420 calories and 107 grams of fat."
Did anyone else feel sorta sick just looking at this thing? I mean, I don't want to ban it or anything, and I like me a cheeseburger as much as (I thought) the next guy. But the whole bar-n-grill tendency to serve up SINGLE 1/3 pound patties is a bit much for me and this is... just... gross.
posted by nanojath 20 years ago
In ""the best sci-fi action requires you to think.""
Scartol: "there IS accounting for tastes, damnit! MINE make sense and YOURS don't!" On a related note that website appears to be down.
posted by nanojath 20 years ago
In "Are You A Cheap Christian?"
It seems a little ridiculous to talk about how "Christians" tip. 70-80 percent of Americans (for instance) self-identify as Christians (yes, I'm one of them, or rather I accept the social label of Christian as a convenient shorthand for y'all), so generalizations are pretty suspect. Given Christ's biblical injunctions against self-display in religious matters, is it so surprising that a particular subset who are so readily identifiable as "Christians" and so prone to displays of "loud" religiosity (i.e. giving tracts to strangers) also appear to fall short of Christian ideals in being, for lack of a better term, cheap bastards? I don't need anyone's approval, permission, or justification, my feelings aren't easily hurt, and I understand that there are subsets of Christianity (as is the case with every ideology, religion, political affiliation, whatever) who are extremely difficult to tolerate. But I continue to find it worthwhile to point out that when people start talking smack about "Christians" they are tarring with a brush that covers 7-8 out of ten individuals they might happen to meet of a given day.
posted by nanojath 20 years ago
(limited to the most recent 20 comments)