Rants and Raves from 2004

See My 2003 Rants

Dennis Miller
(December 30, 2004)

What happened to Dennis Miller? He used to be a comic god.

Now he acts as if his testicles shrivelled up into his chest cavity on 9/11 and he's been hiding behind George W. Bush's coat-tails ever since, quaking like a scared rabbit. He turned to the right so fast that he shattered both his funny bones and a large piece of my faith in someone who used to be a great political comedian.

Some Cool Doctor Who Toy Finds
(December 22, 2004)

I recently bought a toy Dalek on eBay. It was labelled a "Dapol Dalek", and I bought it for $5.00 plus shipping. I had a Dapol Dalek in gold and black, but this looked different.

When it arrived, it had none of the moving features of a Dapol Dalek. The plunger arm and weapon should be on ball pivots. The head should rotate, and the eyestalk should tilt up and down. None of that was on this Dalek.

And on the base was a "Marx Toys" logo! Marx made some of the first and most valuable Dalek toys in the 1960s and 1970s. In fact, one episode of Doctor Who used Marx Daleks to portray an army of Daleks.

But it may turn out that this is indeed a Dapol Dalek after all, as Dapol did some reproductions of the Marx Daleks a while back. Either way, I got more than I bargained for, I believe.

Corgi has created a series of die-cast metal figures for the 40th anniversary of Doctor Who.

I found a couple of the sets on eBay. Got one already, a boxed set of a TARDIS and K-9:

And I finalized an auction just the other day on a boxed set of the Doctor (Tom Baker) and Davros:

This one hasn't arrived yet, but it should be sweet! Also, I will probably get the Dalek and Cyberman boxed set as well:

Next up, I have to get this one: A Dalek and a Cyberman:

Check out the detail on that Dalek!

And if I can afford it, I have to get the tree-pack of colored Daleks, but that one's a bit more expensive!

And most likely, the one remaining Corgi Doctor Who toy is one I will probably never get, or want:

What is the Other Part of Valour?
(December 18, 2004)

I've been wondering... what is the other part of valour? The lesser part?

It is said that discretion is the better part of valour. When something is the better part, it is the best of two parts. Better when used in comparison is used to compare exactly two things. So if discretion is the better part of valour, what is the lesser part?

If you know, please contact me.

Where Are My DVDs?
(December 14, 2004)

DVD is making TV accessible again. This is what I envisioned DVDs to be useful for. To bring back old TV shows that I had either not seen but had longed to see, or ones that I had seen and loved so much I wanted to own them. Firefly, Buffy, Thunderbirds, Captain Scarlet, Space: 1999, The Prisoner, The Avengers, Sports Night, Dead Like Me... Many of these DVDs are selling for cheaply, such as compilations of Superman cartoons, Dragnet episodes, Sherlock Holmes (the 1950s half-hour version) The Lone Ranger, etc.

I think it is high time we get a couple of pretty good shows onto DVD and let the buyers decide whether they deserved to be cancelled.

Two I really want on DVD are the late 1980s The Highwayman and the early 90s Seaquest, DSV

Ok, perhaps just the first season of Seaquest...

Seaquest DSV was a very good SF TV series. It far exceeded a lot of crap that is allowed to continue on TV. I admit the second season was a shambles, but if you get the opportunity, watch season one again. It is worth it. I recorded a bunch of episodes a few years ago during a Science Fiction Channel Seaquest Marathon and I am glad I have those episodes. All from Season one, when they were quite good.

The Highwayman only had about 9 episodes before it got cancelled. I have two on tape and I am continually watching those whenever the mood strikes. And like Seaquest, it was an under-rated show which got the axe far too early.

So... producers... pony up with the DVDs already!

Mispronounciations
(December 13, 2004)

Sure, we all hate it when Bush pronounces nuclear nukular. And we hate it when people say libary, or aks, or heighth, or foilage. Hell, I even hate it when people pronounce irony as ierny. And harassment as harris-ment.

But lately I've been bugged by people who pronounce integral intregal.

That's it. I just hate it when people say something is intregal to the process.

Added: I added Graham as in Graham crackers. Graham has two syllables. Gray-em. or Gray-um. It's Gray-um Crackers. It is not Gramm Crackers. Someone tell the Television Advertisement voice-over artists, please.

God, why can't people learn the language they speak?

blog? Hell no! It's My RANT PAGE, Baby!
(December 12, 2004)

Look, this page has been up since early 1999. Hell, might have been even earlier. There was a year or so when it was down after Turbine stopped providing free web space and I had to get an outside web service, but it's been back for some time now.

This page was here before the word "blog" (dear lord!) was invented. So please don't call this a blog. I hate blogs. This is my Rant Page, and it was here before anyone ever blogged.

A blog is a fad. This page is here to stay.

By the way, back in 1984 I had a .plan.

UPS Again (sigh)
(December 10, 2004)

Sigh. UPS. Again. A friend asked me to order something for her. The company sent it by UPS. They sent me a UPS tracking number as soon as it was shipped. I went to the UPS page and tried to see the status of the order, and they claimed that it was an invalid tracking number. I triple-checked and the number was the one I was given.

Three weeks go by and nothing. I e-mail the place I purchased the item from and they have no idea where it is. It's just... gone. They can't track it either.

So I ask them for another one of the same item. They say the only way to re-order the item is by re-ordering the item. As in going to the web page and ordering... again. They graciously refunded my money and I tried to re-order.

Of course the item was on clearance and was no longer available. I'm out of luck and I tell my friend same. If she wants to pay three times the price I can get her one locally. (One what? Look, you're missing the point. What is unimportant here.)

So several more weeks go by and I get a package from UPS. Here it is. Finally. About two months later. With a new tracking number on it. Shipped from a Massachusetts UPS facility.

Here's what obviously happened: The package was addressed to me in Massachusetts, and it was shipped. But the label fell off, or the tracking number never got input into the OOPS computer, or some crap. It got so far as one of their way-point warehouses where it got ignored because its tracking number was not in their system.

It sat in this warehouse in Massachusetts, probably less than 30 miles from here, for weeks. And weeks. Until someone noticed it and said "Damn, this should have been delivered weeks and weeks ago." They popped a new tracking number on it and shipped it to the address that was on the box.

So in this case I got my package... weeks and weeks late. But I got it.

How's that for typical OOPS efficiency? Spot on, brother!

Supreme Court of Canada Accepts Same-Sex Marriage
(December 8, 2004)

Well done, Canada. You strike a blow for equal civil rights, and I am proud this day to be a Canadian.

Ribbons Can Be Fun. Can I Play Too?
(November 6, 2004)

I love it. Pay a few bucks, slap some stupid ribbon on your car and you're doing your part on the war on terror. And some idiots actually believe that.

But even ditzy and vaccuous Kelly Rippa asked an intelligent question about these ribbons when one was shown saying "Support Our Troops" on the Regis and Kelly show. She asked "Does any of the money go towards the troops?" The question wasn't answered, and in fact was not even acknowledged.

Here are a few of these stupid things:

Hey, that was fun. Can I play?

Ah, there. That's better.

How can 59,054,087 Americans be so dumb!- The Daily Mirror
(November 3, 2004)

Sigh. Need I say more?

The Results of the US Election You Ask?.
(November 3, 2004)

Sigh. Need I say more? Basically the results were this: (found on the internet)

Be it on your own heads!

The O'Reilly Indoctrination for Kids.
(November 1, 2004)

When I first saw Sean Hannity's book "Deliver Us From Evil" I laughed. But it was a sad laugh. Propagandist bullshit seems to be making idiots a lot of money these days. But hey, we're all adults, right? We know right from wrong, and Right from right.

But kids?

Bill O'Reilly, alleged (Huh!) pornographic harrasser of female co-workers and all-round scumbag, (catch his scream-fest at Al Franken - hey, Bill. Shut up, shut up!) has aimed his latest book based on his TV show "The O'Reilly Fiction" at kids.

I wish this were untrue, dear god, I wish this were untrue, as I wish O'Reilly would just slink away to the dark hole he belongs in and disappears from the national subconscious.

You think I'm making this up? I couldn't make this up if I tried!

I have not read the book but I have read enough of O'Reilly's words and heard enough of them. And I mean enough. Too many. I have to ask myself if he's teaching kids how to have phone sex or does he just leave that for his employees?

That's all this country needs - an organization of "O'Reilly Youth".

That's right... Bill O'Reilly - Douchebag for Indoctrination. I kid you not. Hey, Bill. Your 15 minutes is about up. You can go join Morton Downey Junior now.

(* You may wonder why this rant is so vitriolic. Why so angry? Why so vicious? Because this is about a tenth of how much I feel this guy is the scum of the earth and needs serious correcting. It's liars and scumbags like O'Reilly, Hannity, Scarborough, Rush, who make this world worse.)

This, Ladies and Gentlemen, is the President of the United States of America
(October 30, 2004)

Doctor Who New Series Logo Revealed - Ugh...
(October 22, 2004)

I've been following information about the new Doctor Who TV series, something long-awaited by fans of the original show which aired longer than any science fiction TV show in history. The actor playing the new Doctor has gotten plenty of people excited. Christopher Eccleston, well known film actor, has been given the role and fans couldn't be happier.

Recently, the BBC revealed the new Doctor Who logo. And here it is:

So the font isn't bad. But that's where my admiration of this logo ends. Why? Well, because it looks like the Eye of Sauron for one thing. Secondly, it uses the single most cliché CGI technique available - the stock lens flare. The use of this went out years ago. This is the CGI equivalent of Disco. This is a very amateurish piece of work.

I argued on a Doctor Who newsgroup that it looked like the Eye of Sauron, and some people piped up that it looked nothing like it. So here, for those who don't get it, is a progression I worked up. I wish I knew how to use Flash, I'd have made this an animation.

Even presented with graphics of the two side-by-side, die-hards still stubbornly stuck to the "It looks nothing like the Eye of Sauron" line. Shyeahhh...

$51.50 For a Bag of Apples??? ARE THEY NUTS?
(October 10, 2004)

My wife and daughter had been to the Marino Lookout Farms in Massachusetts before, picking apples. She recalls that the price wasn't bad, and it was a fun outing. A few years back when my daughter was, oh, around four or so. She can't quite recall the price of a bag of apples, but it wasn't too bad.

We went back there yesterday. My wife says it's all changed. She couldn't believe the number of cars and the lineups of people. There were six porta-potties by the entrance. You buy a bag, pay admission, and get a tram to the apple orchards to pick a bag of apples.

So yesterday we found out that to get to the fields takes $5.00 per adult and $4.00 per child. We saw large families there. The lineup to the tram was, and I am not kidding, about the same as the lineup for the parking trams at Disney leaving the place in the evening.

They had two bag sizes. One was a small bag which they estimate holds 15 pounds of apples. The larger bag holds 25 pounds of apples. The price wasn't by the bag, but by the pound. $1.50 a pound.

So to get the larger bag would cost... let's break this down, for our family of three:

We high-tailed it out of there in a jiffy. We knew a better place where they aren't robbing you blind.

So we went to Nashoba Valley Winery, also in Massachusetts, in fact, not terribly far from Marino Lookout. We'd been there several times before, and have always enjoyed the experience, and the fruit. They have mostly the same apples available (though at various times, of course) and they also have peaches in August.

They also have two bag sizes. A quarter bushel and a half-bushel. The bags seem to be the same size as at Marino Lookout Farms. Let's go over the prices, shall we?

At Noshoba Valley Winery we got a huge bag of apples. We picked about 3/4 Courtland (like large McIntosh - that zippy, tasty, tangy apple) and 1/4 Red Delicious. If you want fewer apples, the quarter-bushel bag was only $9.00 as opposed to the $22.50 at Marino (again, plus $14.00 for the three of us for the privelege of picking our own) for a grand total of $36.50. More than four times the cost at Nashoba.

Hey, Marino, can you say "rip off"? Or "tourist trap"? (If these were tourists... which I'm sure most weren't.)

Noshoba also has a wine shop and we bought two bottles of their wine. A bottle of New English Apple Carbonated Cider and a Dry Pear Wine. This cost $9.00 for the pear, and $6.00 for the cider. And the cider, which we tried last night, was excellent. No bitterness you sometimes get from hard apple cider. Smooth, excellent taste. And it packs a bit of a punch. I won't count the $15.00 for the cider and wine, or the $4.00 we spent on freshly dipped caramel apples, because if those were available at Marino, that would only have increased the $51.50 total there anyway, so let's call that even. I honestly didn't stay at Marino long enough to find out if they had wines available or what their prices were.

So for a nice day out apple picking, you can go to the over-crowded Marino Lookout Farms where they have - gasp - a petting zoo!!! (Not uncommon in New England) or you can spend your money wisely and go to Nashoba Valley Winery where the crowds are smaller, and better managed, and the wine shop itself is worth the outing, but the picking is excellent.

What's astounding was the sheer number of people at Marino Lookout Farms with multiple kids. Each one costs $4.00 to just go to the apple fields. I'm astounded.

Hmmm, for about 25 pounds of apples, you can pay $51.50 or $15.00.

You Pick.

Just As I Leave Disney, the Simpsons Go To Disney
(Aug 24, 2004)

Bizarre. I just got back from five days and nights in Orlando where we visited all four of the major Disney parks (Epcot, Magic Kingdom, MGM Studios and Animal Kingdom) as well as Kennedy Space Center, and the first Simpsons I see is the one where Bart nominates Mrs. Crabapple as Teacher of the Year and they all go to Epcot for the ceremony. How weird.

Disney was amazing. But for me the three hour "Then and Now" bus tour of Kennedy Space Center and Cape Canaveral, to all the old historic launch sites was a spiritual pilgrimage that was a long time coming.

Wow. I'm speechless for a change.

The Most Clever Print Ad I've Seen In Years
(Aug 15, 2004)

The ad is for Bordeaux red wine. Click on the image for a larger version.

This is the best print ad I've seen since this one.

AVR?
(Aug 15, 2004)

I have absolutely no comment on this. I think it speaks for itself.

The WMO Misses a Golden Opportunity
(Aug 13, 2004)

The World Meteorological Organization names hurricanes. There are three lists. Atlantic, Pacific and Retired hurricane names. There is a six-year rotating list. In the 2004 (and 2010, 1016, etc...) Atlantic list B and C are called Bonnie and ... uh ... Charley. What a missed opportunity. This year, in the Atlantic B and C are hitting with a one-two punch. Obviously they should have been called Bonnie and Clyde.

I hate seeing a missed opportunity.

Strange Word Usage
(Aug 9, 2004)

Why is it we always say that a movie star or a politician has a "meteoric rise" to fame? Technically meteoric means fast, brilliant. However, a meteor always falls. A meteor is a meteoroid which glows into incandescence as it falls through the earth's atmosphere. It's not a meteor unless it's falling to its end. So why do we say "meteoric rise?" Meteors never rise.

And don't get me started on decimate.

"The whole office was decimated by this cold." Oh good, that means only 10% of the office is out with the cold. The other 90% is fine and healthy.

Decimation was a Roman ritual where they quelled rebellion by decimating a village - ie: killing one out of every ten people. This terrorist tactic kept the villages in line. But it does not mean total devastation. It simply means 10% devastation.

It's been pointed out to me that a meteoroid that actuall falls and lands on the ground is a meteorite. I knew that. I once did a cartoon in which one character turns to the other and says "What's the difference between a meteor and a meteorite" and the other guy says "ite." So I know. But even though a meteorite lands on the earth and a meteor skips on the atmosphere and burns up (or is deflected) it still falls towards the earth.

My UPS Complaint #23482 - Refusing to Allow Refusing Packages
(July 21, 2004)

This is not my first bad experience with UPS. I have had at least 50% of all incoming packages addressed to my apartment go wrong somehow. Usually it was a Friday, and they tried to deliver a package to my apartment when my wife had gone out for three minutes (after being home all day) to pick my daughter up at the bus stop. In fact, she usually sees the truck come and go. Then suddenly there's a post-it note on the door saying they tried to deliver it, and that the next possible day I can get it is the following Tuesday. And that's because I can only call on Monday to get the package redelivered (for the same likely outcome) or redirected to my office the following day.

Thank you so much for your service, UPS. I opted not to rant on these pages every time because my frustration just got the better of me. I didn't think I could write coherently.

But I've had it with UPS.

After my Amazon.com debacle I was left with a package on its way to me via UPS that I didn't want, and needed to be returned to get my money back. Returned at their expense, not mine. So I called up UPS the day I got my tracking information from Amazon. This was July 16. There was no button on UPS's web page to refuse a package so I called them up to tell them I didn't want this package.

The conversation went something like this: (First, you should know that before they send you to Customer Service, their automatic voice service asks you to speak your tracking number, and then speaks it back to you to confirm it.)

UPS: Tracking number please.
Me: Uh, I input that earlier in the system.
UPS: Tracking number please.
Me: Z12037498732948723948723984723987423 (or watever the hell it was)
UPS: How can I help you?
Me: I want to refuse that package.
UPS: Sir, you can't refuse the package until the day it's delivered.
Me: You're kidding me.
UPS: Sir, no sir, there is no way to stop the package from delivery until the day of delivery.
Me: What a stupid system. Thanks for nothing.

I hang up in frustration.

A week later I check the tracking. The tracking is this: (With estimated ship date of one day later than originally listed on the tracking. Now it was going to arrive on July 27. Eleven days after it shipped.

Jul 21, 2004 06:21:52 PM HODGKINS IL US LOCATION SCAN
Jul 21, 2004 06:02:00 AM HODGKINS IL US ARRIVAL SCAN
Jul 17, 2004 01:29:00 AM SPARKS NV US DEPARTURE SCAN
Jul 16, 2004 10:14:12 PM SPARKS NV US ORIGIN SCAN
Jul 16, 2004 03:24:47 PM Reno NV USA SHIPPED
Jul 16, 2004 12:49:48 AM US BILLING INFORMATION RECEIVED

UPS: Tracking number please.
Me: I input the tracking number by voice earlier.
UPS: Tracking number please.
Me: Z12037498732948723948723984723987423 (or watever the hell it was)
UPS: How can I help you?
Me: I'd like to refuse that package.
UPS: Sir, there is no way to refuse a package (Me (interrupting): Why not? Why isn't there a way?) Sir, you're not listening to me. Sir, there is no way for (Me: Sorry, go ahead.) Sir, there is no way to refuse a package until it arrives for delivery.
Me: Why is that? Isn't that a dumb system? This package is going to take eleven days to get to me at which point I'll say "no thanks" to your delivery guy, and he'll mark it return to sender and it will take another eleven days for it to get back to Amazon.com, for me to get my refund. Grand total - TWENTY TWO DAYS to get a package back to the place it was shipped, after I tried to refuse it TWENTY TWO DAYS EARLIER! Where's the sense in that?
UPS: Sir, there is no way to refuse a package until it is on the van for delivery. Until then it is stuck in a container. For us to refuse a package it has to be in our hands. It has to be scanned.
Me: Uh... this package was scanned. It was scanned several times. And it will be scanned several more times before it gets to me. It was scanned on July 16. It was scanned on July 17. It was scanned on July 21. Twice. At any time the scanner could have gotten a REFUSE flag and tossed the package into a Return to Sender box, and it would have gone back. Immediately. Saving me 22 days of wasted time waiting for my Amazon refund so I could actually order what I wanted. (You can read why I didn't want it here.)
UPS: But sir, that's not the way it works. There is no way to refuse a package until...
Me: Until it's on the truck, yes. Thanks.

I hang up in frustration.

So here's the question. Why isn't there such a system in place? Why should a group of people expend effort to carry a package clear across the country after they know the recipient is going to refuse it? Why not, at any scan point have the computer system go: Beep beep beep... this package has been refused. Stop wasting your time getting it across 22 states to Massachusetts! Put me in the RETURN box now and not 11 days form now.

This is yet another reason I will never use UPS.

Why, then, you may ask, are you using UPS?

I'm not. Amazon is. I only ever use UPS when people ship me things. I'm not using UPS, they are. I will never. Ever. Ever. Ever. EVER... use UPS. NEVER!

And unless you want pain, anguish and serious inconvenience, I encourage you to also not use UPS.

BOYCOT STUPIDITY. BOYCOT UPS!!!

Amazon.com is Great... Unless You Want To Do Anything Not Straightforward
(July 18, 2004)

In April I received a $10.00 gift certificate to Amazon.com. So I shopped around and saw that the film Thunderbirds Are Go! was available, so I bought it. It was close enough to $25.00 for me to use the Super-Saver Shipping if I ordered one other DVD. So I ordered TRON.

Now to fully understand the problem you should know that TRON is available for shipping immediately, but Thunderbirds Are Go! is on pre-order until late July. This is April. I'm patient. I'm willing to wait.

On July 15 I find out that there's a new DVD out - a two-set including Thunderbirds Are Go and Thunderbird 6, both of the Thunderbirds feature films. So I head over to Amazon to check my order (which still hadn't shipped as TAG isnt' ready to ship for another week.) My intention was simple:

Replace Thunderbirds Are Go with The International Rescue Edition of Thunderbirds Are Go! and Thunderbird 6. This costs more, by the way, than the single DVD I had originally ordered.

There is no button that says "Replace item with another item" on an order. Their system help info said I could simply order So I simply deleted Thunderbirds Are Go from the order The International Rescue Edition of Thunderbirds Are Go! and Thunderbird 6 on another order and merge the two orders. Sounds easy enough.

So I go and order The International Rescue Edition of Thunderbirds Are Go! and Thunderbird 6 in a second order.

Then I go to "Merge Orders" page and find that I cannot merge these two orders. Why not? Because it said I can't merge orders that used the Super-Saver Shipping option.

Hell, Super-Saver Shipping saves me like three bucks, so I go to the first order and remove Super-Saver Shipping, opting for the slow ground shipping for about $3.00.

Then I go back to the merge option. Cannot merge these orders due to Super-Saver Shipping. Ok, I just turned off SSS. Yet the system still thinks it can't merge the two orders because of SSS.

It clearly states that as long as my order had not yet entered Ship Mode I could merge my two orders. (This is important later)

I write a letter of complaint to Amazon.com telling them to merge my two orders, to forget Super-Saver Shipping, and oh, by the way, forget about TRON. I don't really want it.

So why not just cancel the entire order and order The International Rescue Edition of Thunderbirds Are Go! and Thunderbird 6?

Easy. Because I used a $10.00 gift certificate to order TRON and Thunderbirds Are Go! and the Amazon help page says you can't use a gift certificate on two orders. Once you use it, it's in the system. So my thought was - if I cancel the entire order, I lose $10.00.

I did all of this from my home computer. But my account e-mail is my work computer.

So the next morning I get in, check my status, see if they left any e-mail.

They did. The ever-helpful people at Amazon completely misunderstood my situation. Which is not hard to understand - this situation is complicated beyond necessity.

They said "We're sorry, but your order does not apply for Super-Saver Shipping, as it was less than $25.00. Please use the Merge Orders command to merge your two orders."

Besides being irrelevant to my problem since I no longer cared about SSS and told them so, and I couldn't merge orders because of an error in their system that didn't recognize that my original order had had SSS removed, this was completely unhelpful. The Customer Service Rep who e-mailed me did not merge my two orders as I had requested, and did nothing to help me.

So I checked my account.

TRON HAD ENTERED SHIPPING MODE!

Oh, for godsake! I could not merge these two orders now because the first order had shipped. Containing a DVD I no longer wanted, and tried to remove. (But to remove it would have made the order empty with a $10.00 gift certificate that would have gotten lost!)

So I look everywhere on Amazon's web page to find the help number to call an actual human being. It's not anywhere on their site.

By the way, for your information, it's (800) 201-7575

I got this from a co-worker who I told about my problem. He sent me this after having found it a few months ago searching the internet so he could get a problem resolved.

Sending e-mails to Amazon.com will only result in a (to me) purposeful misunderstanding of your problem so they won't actually have to solve it.

The phone number worked. I talked to a very nice rep named Kris who helped me by saying that I could simply refuse the UPS package on delivery and it would come back to them at no expense to me, whereupon they would credit my account with the total cost of TRON which would include my $10.00 gift certificate. Basically it meant I would have an Amazon credit of $10.00.

At which point I could order The International Rescue Edition of Thunderbirds Are Go! and Thunderbird 6 and not lose my $10.00 gift certificate.

Easy, then. I'll simply refuse shipping at UPS and the package will immediately go back to Amazon for a full credit and I can quickly order The International Rescue Edition of Thunderbirds Are Go! and Thunderbird 6.

Huh! Yeah, right!

Stupidity Viruses
(July 24, 2004)

In the past week two messages have propagated themselves all over internet newsgroups claiming that Osama bin Laden was found hanged and that Arnold Schwarzenegger was found hanged. Both contained either ZIP files attached, or links to a ZIP file.

The thing is, lately, people have found a way to propagate Trojan Horses through ZIP files.

Let's make this one thing clear. This is not a virus. A virus is cleverly coded to spread itself from computer to computer using various means. This is not such a thing. This is a Trojan Horse - an application that claims to do one thing, yet does something else, usually malicious. I don't know or care what this one does, but the thing is, there should be another term coined - and here it is: Stupidity Virus.

I also coined the term Time Virus to define those idiotic messages your friends and family send you in your e-mail account that are about Little Timmy and his Cancerous Growth who overcame adversity, or the Iraqi soldier who... whatever. Who cares? None of them are true, they were all made up to waste peoples' time.

The problem is that your friends and family who finally climbed down from the trees and crawled onto the intenet love to send these around because they can't be lies can they??? Can they??? Who would make such a thing up?

Time Viruses are designed to act like Chain Letters, only without usually asking for money. They are a waste of time and intenet bandwidth.

This current trojan is a Stupidity Virus. Who the hell runs a ZIP file or any executable file sent around the internet without checking that it may be something harmful? This kind of "virus" requires that a stupid person actually be gullible enough to run the link and infect themselves.

People actually have to install the damn thing for it to propagate. To me this proves that people should not be allowed onto the internet without passing an intelligence test first.

Sigh.

I don't care a crap if they wipe their own hard-drives but what they install spreads to others not so stupidly and infects people NOT stupid.

Stupid gits.

Cape St. Mary's, Newfoundland
(July 12, 2004)

My wife just returned from a 10 day trip to Newfoundland. One stop on her visit was Cape St. Mary's bird sanctuary. The most prominent feature of this sanctuary is a sea-stack (a large rock jutting up from the ocean) which houses thousands upon thousands of nesting gannets. Here's a picture she shot. If you can ever get there, get there.

Or click here for a 1400x1000 image. [200K]

This is not an optical illusion. The sea stack (the nesting rock) rises up out of the water some hundreds of feet below, and only a spitting distance from the land where these tourists sit. You can't see the gap here, but it's not very large. You really are sitting this close to a protected bird sanctuary, and the birds are perfectly protected. Just a handful of yards of empty space separate the tourist from the gannets. One of the world's truly magical places.

Suffer The Children...
(May 27, 2004)

Today it was announced that Cardinal Bernard Law, who resigned in disgrace from the Boston Archdiocese over the abhorrent scandal of child abuse under his leadership, has been promoted to a church in Rome.

So... here's how the Catholic Church deals with the abuse of innocent children. Rather than removing these abusive priests when they're reported, move them around for fresh meat from time to time -- then you let that leader lie low for a year or so, let it all blow over, make sure he's a good little boy for the Vatican, then you promote him to a church in Rome.

Law has been appointed archpriest of St. Mary Major Basilica, a largely ceremonial post often given to retired prelates. It is a promotion of honor.

I know a thing or two about these kinds of thing. I have some knowledge that people in the Boston area don't. No, I wasn't abused by a priest, but I came from Newfoundland, where, in the 1980s and 1990s a scandal broke loose that almost destroyed the Catholic Church in the region. Anyone who followed that story knows more about priest child abuse than most people in the Boston area apart from those who have first-erm-hand knowledge.

It's annoying to watch. Here in Boston people are acting as if this is the only place priests have ever abused children, when if they just would take their bloody blinders off for a second and look around them, they'd see this kind of thing happening all over the world.

Do some research: Google "Mount Cashell Newfoundland Priest Child Abuse" Do some light reading.

Yup. Let the good old boy lie low for a while and then when no one's looking, give him a promotion. That's what Jesus would do, right?

Is it just me, or are these people misinterpreting Jesus when he said "suffer the children to come unto me?"

Peabody Essex Museum
(May 9, 2004)

What a great museum they have up there in Salem, MA. I've been going there for years, but haven't been since they opened their new building. And the Yin Yu Tang Chinese House (built in the 1600s and brought over brick by brick, beam by beam from China) is incredible. This museum has some of the most gorgeous pieces I've ever seen, including the most intricately carved ivory tusk I've ever seen, an Ivory egg-shaped case, about 14 inches tall, with the most intricate carving, an incredible ivory desk that is the finest example of its kind ever, some beautiful concentric spheres carved from Ivory.

But one piece caught my eye today. Funny enough, it was in the kids' section, in the Idea Studio. It's a small boxwood carving (about 1.5 or 2 inches in diameter) of Judgement Day, a prayer ball, apparently, from Belgium, I forget the date.

Terminal Rosary Bead Depicting Heaven and Day of Judgement - 15th or early 16th century. Probably Belgium. Just sitting there in the kids' room.

It was so impressive, that I took a stereo image of it, and I had to share.

There are staves or spears in the hands of some of the carved figures that aren't much thicker than a human hair, and no thicker than a thin needle. Note the sunburst at the top. The top half has a lot more characters, only the bottom portion of which can be seen in my photo. I wanted to concentrate on the bottom half, which has the most detail and intricate carving.

The Analglyph version is a red/blue 3D image that can be viewed with standard red/blue 3D glasses (like the ones that came with Spy Kids 3).

The freeview version is a cross-eyed pair of images. Cross your eyes until the images align, and then let your eyes focus. This is the preferred method because red/blue loses lots of color information, but as it's just beige wood, the analglyph image is also nice, and is bigger, for more sharp detail.

Enjoy!

Click to see Analglyph 3D (Red-Blue glasses required)	Click to see Freeview 3D. Cross eyes until images meet, and let focus.

I just wish I had thought to take a stereo image of the ivory ball. About the size of a softball, it is intricately carved in Ivory on the outside. Then inside that, a concentric sphere is carved. This sphere can revolve inside the outer one. Then inside that one is another, and another, and another. Fifteen levels of concentric spheres perfectly carved in there. Here's an image of it.

Click for larger image

The Right Cover (Or: Deliver Us From Hannity, Limbaugh, Coulter, O'Reilly, Scarborough, Matthews, Carlson, et al ad nauseum)
(May 7, 2004)

This is how the cover of Sean Hannity's book should look.

I liked this review from an Amazon.com reader:

Read and you'll find the "Truth"! (Note that "Truth" is in quotes...)

The Liberal Media Conspiracy
(May 7, 2004)

The vocal Right has convinced America that there was and is a liberal media bias. So say Anne Coulter, Tucker Carlson, Rush Limbaugh, Sean Hannity, Chris Matthews, Bill O'Reilly, Joe Scarborough, all of which are included in the large number of right-wing talk-show hosts that have their own TV shows or are prominent on other right-wing talk shows, all of which are owned by Right-Wing rich media moguls.

But one thing they conveniently forget to mention is that apart from Air America (a fledgling radio network of left-thinking hosts) there ARE no left-wing liberal talk-show hosts.

The Right has convinced America that there is a liberal media bias the way a bully convinces a Cop that he's being beaten when the guy he's sitting on and pummelling manages to get one punch off, and then the bully says "See? I told you! There's a Liberal Media Bias!"

An Example of the Conservative
(May 2, 2004)

I found the perfect example of a Conservative yesterday.

I was on a beach. The beach was about five miles wide, and a half-mile deep. There weren't more than a couple-hundred people on the whole beach, stretching out as far as the eye could see. (On this particular beach on a hot summer day, it's normal to see many many thousands). Plenty of room. I was setting up a kite so my daughter and I could fly it. The line was tangled, and the kite was flapping in a fairly strong and gusty wind.

Two older guys walked by, and commented on how good my kite looked. It was a replica of a bi-plane. They recognized the type of plane.

While I was untangling the string, another guy walked by and proceeded to walk right into my kite. Right into it! My kite was flapping rather wildly in the strong wind while I untangled the line.

He swatted at the kite, and it wouldn't get out of his way. He pushed at it, and it wouldn't get out of his way. The wind kept batting it around, and into him. He eventually got angry, shoved my kite over his head, and kept walking.

That, my friends is a conservative.

A man with five miles of beach one way, and a half-mile another, and was pissed off that my kite was in his way.

He saw it, directly in his path, and would NOT move to go around it. Now if that kite was a boulder, would the guy have walked up to it, smashed his nose and bitched that the damn rock didn't get out of his way? Or would he have manoeuvered around the boulder?

That, my friends is a conservative.

He believes that he lives in a society in which he owns everything, and everyone else belongs out of his way.

This is not an analogy. This is not a parable. This happened to me on May 1, 2004, while I tried to fly my kite at Nantasket Beach in Massachusetts.

Vote Nader! FOUR MORE YEARS!
(March 29, 2004)

Weekend Warriors Take a Hint
(March 23, 2004)

Ok, guys. I see you every weekend. You're walking around WalMart or Home Depot. You're picking up spackle, plaster, nails, hammers, whatever. But you're wearing camouflage pants.

I hate to break this to you, but: WE CAN SEE YOU!

King and King - The Indoctrination of American Children into Homosexuality
(March 23, 2004)

Anti-gay activists are upset that a new Dutch childrens' book called King and King. The story is about two princes who fall in love.

I admit that I debase myself by watching Tough Crowd with Colin Quinn, because no one likes a tremendous car accident more than me. I've been in two.

One noted regular, Keith Robinson, a black comedian, is sick, he says, of gays pushing their agenda on America. This from a man who is most often seen complaining if a photograph on a topic features a black man saying "Why is it always a brother?" and as Colin says, would also complain if a photograph on a topic features a white man, saying "Why ain't it a brother?"

How is this book indoctrinating our kids? Off the top of my mind I know the titles of two books about homosexuality. Heather Has Two Mommies about a girl being raised by two lesbians, and now King and King. And I only know of this one because I watched this episode of Tough Crowd. What is the world coming to when our kids are so over-exposed to the gay lifestyle?

How is this indoctrinating our kids into the gay agenda?

My daughter is 8 years old. Just about every second book she reads these days is about the slavery of Africans in America. Whether it be a factual book or a fiction book based in the era of the underground railroad, in the past two weeks she's read no fewer than a dozen such books, and is constantly looking for more.

She was so amazed when she found out about slavery that people could do that to one another, that she decided to read up on it with every book she can find. I've done special searches on the library Minuteman system to find more books for her. She can't get enough of them. And there's no shortage.

And she's rented the film My Friend Martin several times from the library. This is a robustly-cast animated feature film about the life of Martin Luther King Jr. and what the world might be like if he hadn't had the chance to work towards the Civil Rights Movement in America.

So I guess my point to Mr. Robinson is, Stop indoctrinating my daughter into the black culture!

We must stop this madness, because, soon, I just know it, there may be three books whose names I know about homosexuality aimed at our innocent kids. And they may grow up learning about homosexualtiy, and becoming all tolerant of gays, and we don't want that, now, do we?

Massachusetts Legislature Trying to Pass Constitutional Amenment on Gay Marriage
(March 11, 2004)

Massachusetts lawmakers are trying to push through an amendment to the state constitution that will ban gay marraige, but support same-sex civil unions. This generous compromise should be embraced, right?

Of course not. This, as the Massachusetts Judicial Court has already written in a decision, is not acceptable, because, "the history of our nation has demonstrated that separate is seldom, if ever, equal."

So the Massachusetts lawmakers, because they don't like the court's ruling that to deny gays equal marraige rights is unconstitutional, are scrambling to change the rules to make it completely constitutional. By changing the constitution to suit their current moral stand. They, I guess, are hoping that they can codify "Separate Is Equal" into the constitution, but that doesn't work.

In George Orwell's "Animal Farm", the animals become civilized, and form a supposed utopia, with their constitution reading simply, "All Animals Are Equal." Later, as politics flare up and things go awry, the constitution is amended to read, "All Animals Are Equal, But Some Are More Equal Than Others."

The thing is, I doubt gays will accept civil unions as a solution because it is not equal treatment under the law. The court ruled that "separate but equal" is rarely equal. Gee, I wonder what history backs that up?

These people are looking to codify discrimination into the Constitution of the state of Massachusetts, and at the same time, Bush is trying to do the same nationally.

And to officially settle for second-class citizenship (as opposed to the current situation, accepting an unofficial second-class citizenship) is not something I think gays will do, nor should they do. History will not look upon these lawmakers generously, any more than they currently look upon ardent segregationalists generously.

But keep going, MA lawmakers... after all, there's an old saying that goes something like this:

"Give them an inch, and they may want what they rightfully deserve."

or:

"We're compromising on civil rights. Isn't that what you want?"

Sure, that's what we want our lawmakers to do... compromise on civil rights. I know I'd be perfectly happy if they compromised my civil rights, and I'm sure they would be happy if someone compromised their civil rights.

After all, doesn't the pre-amble to the US Constitution begin: "We The Straight People..."?

The Right-Wing Propaganda Machine Strikes Against John Kerry
(March 3, 2004)

Updated March 8, 2005:

The person who called my attention to this story has done some research into the credentials of Mr. Glenn Lackey. (Col, USA Retired) My friend writes:

It turns out that Glenn Lackey was the Chief of Staff for Republican Congressman Michael Flanagan. He's the current VP of Flanagan Consulting, LLC. That's right, he's the Vice President of a lobbying firm owned by his former Republican congressional boss.

So much for Mr. Lackey's credibility when criticizing a Democratic candidate for President.

Updated March 5, 2005:

Having heard no response from either TownHall.com nor FactCheck.org, I opted to change the contents of the letter and send it to Al Franken through Eric Hananoki's web site, recommended by Al Franken's official site.

If I get no response within a reasonable time, I'll try MoveOn.org, a web site dedicated to the removal of Bush from the White House.

Today, I read an article in TownHall.com, a right-wing conservative rag that is probably one of the worst forums for right-wing-nuts I've ever encountered. Yet even on such a site, I expect columnists to tell the truth when possible.

There is an article on their site by Jay Bryant which publishes a letter to Mr. Kerry from fellow Viet Nam veteren Glenn Lackey.

The letter takes a quote from Senator Kerry in a 1971 Senate hearing about Viet Nam completely out of context and uses it to claim that Kerry is as bad as a war criminal. In this unconscionable attempt to discredit Kerry as he gets set to run against Bush, this columnist breaks every rule of journalism.

Inasmuch as he admitted to me that he knew the quote was taken out of context, I find this article by Jay Bryant to be unconscionable, and even actionable.

In an attempt to draw some attention to this article and its author, Jay Bryant, I sent the following letter to FactCheck.org in the hopes that they would do something to refute the mis-attributed quote by Kerry. Otherwise the propaganda in that letter will go unanswered.

Dear Editor (FactCheck.org)

I wish to call to your attention an article published at the web site, "TownHall.com" (http://www.townhall.com/columnists/jaybryant/printjb20040303.shtml) by Jay Bryant entitled "Dear Mr. Kerry."

In this article, Bryant publishes a letter to Mr. Kerry from a fellow Viet Nam veteren named Glenn Lackey. Mr. Lackey, in his colorfully worded letter, claims:

"Dear Mr. Kerry;

After spending only four months in the country of Vietnam, you testified before Congress in 1971 with these exact words about incidents you say you witnessed: "They personally raped, cut off ears, cut off heads, taped wires from portable telephones to human genitals and turned up the power, cut off limbs, blew up bodies, randomly shot at civilians, razed villages, shot cattle and dogs for fun, poisoned food stocks, and generally ravaged the countryside of South Viet Nam."

He refers to Senate hearings at which Kerry testified that he heard other veterens revealing some very bad events that happened during that war.

Kerry’s actual words were:

It is impossible to describe to you exactly what did happen in Detroit, the emotions in the room and the feelings of the men who were reliving their experiences in Vietnam. They relived the absolute horror of what this country, in a sense, made them do.

They told stories that at times they had personally raped, cut off ears, cut off heads. taped wires from portable telephones to human genitals and turned up the power, cut off limbs, blown up bodies, randomly shot at civilians, razed villages in fashion reminiscent of Genghis Khan, shot cattle and dogs for fun, poisoned food stocks, and generally ravaged the countryside of South Vietnam in addition to the normal ravage of war and the normal and very particular ravaging which is done by the applied bombing power of this country.

 

Lackey takes Kerry’s own words out of context, making it sound like Kerry himself witnessed these acts. The distinction is incredibly important, because Lackey goes on to say:

Spread that on a farmer's field where it will do some good. I spent a year there in 1968-69 in a combat arms unit. I was a Field Artillery Forward Observer in an Infantry company and I saw combat every day until I was wounded. When I returned from the hospital, I was assigned to an artillery battery. I saw brave men fight and die; I saw brave, good men pass out all their rations to hungry kids, build churches and schools, donate to orphanages, cry silently at the sight of villagers slaughtered by North Vietnamese, but I never saw anything approaching the war crimes that you happened to witness as your boat sped by villages on the river bank. If you witnessed atrocities and did not report them, you are guilty of aiding and abetting. If you lied, you are simply unfit for leadership at any level. The most serious incident I witnessed was a young sergeant who grabbed the arm of a Vietnamese woman during a village search.

In this paragraph, he claims simply that because he didn’t witness any atrocities in Viet Nam, (apart from the rough handling of one woman) that Kerry must be lying, and that if he wasn’t lying, he was complicit in these attrocious war crimes.

He mis-uses words from Kerry’s testimony to not only discredit the Democratic front-runner for the Presidential nomination, but to imply he is a war criminal.

Upon reading that article, I sent the following letter to both TownHall.com and Jay Bryant:

Shame on you for publishing a letter by veteren Glenn Lackey, dismissing Kerry's claims about atrocities during the Viet Nam war.

http://www.townhall.com/columnists/jaybryant/printjb20040303.shtml

Such atrocities occurred, and are well documented, but that is not the issue here.

Lackey (a good name for the man) uses terms like "Spread that on a farmer's field where it will do some good." to dismiss Kerry's words. Yet he spreads a bit of his own manure in this piece.

Lackey is guilty of using Kerry's words out of context against him.

Note that Lackey writes:

"After spending only four months in the country of Vietnam, you testified before Congress in 1971 with these exact words about incidents you say you witnessed: "They personally raped, cut off ears, cut off heads, taped wires from portable telephones to human genitals and turned up the power, cut off limbs, blew up bodies, randomly shot at civilians, razed villages, shot cattle and dogs for fun, poisoned food stocks, and generally ravaged the countryside of South Viet Nam."

I would give Mr Lackey the benefit of the doubt that he may not have read the entire quote, but I find it easier to believe based on the tone of the letter and his frequent reference to words as excrement, that he is deliberately spreading propagandist lies.

The following is an exerpt from Kerry's statement to the Senate: (The quote Lackey destroys is in here)

John Kerry: Statement on Vietnam to Senate Committee (1971)

I would like to talk on behalf of all those veterans and say that several months ago in Detroit we had an investigation at which over 150 honorably discharged, and many very highly decorated, veterans testified to war crimes committed in Southeast Asia. These were not isolated incidents but crimes committed on a day-to-day basis with the tull awareness of officers at all levels of command.

It is impossible to describe to you exactly what did happen in Detroit, the emotions in the room and the feelings of the men who were reliving their experiences in Vietnam. They relived the absolute horror of what this country, in a sense, made them do.

They told stories that at times they had personally raped, cut off ears, cut off heads. taped wires from portable telephones to human genitals and turned up the power, cut off limbs, blown up bodies, randomly shot at civilians, razed villages in fashion reminiscent of Genghis Khan, shot cattle and dogs for fun, poisoned food stocks, and generally ravaged the countryside of South Vietnam in addition to the normal ravage of war and the normal and very particular ravaging which is done by the applied bombing power of this country.

As you see, Kerry was reporting what other veterens told him. He did not claim to witness any of these things himself.

Lackey's letter misleads the public into believing that Kerry himself is complicit in war crimes. Not only does he claim that such things never happened because he didn't actually see them, Lackey then goes on to say that if they did happen, Kerry himself would be guilty of those crimes.

Lackey deserves to be exposed for what he is - a fraud who uses sound bites to discredit an honored war veteren. He gives other veterens a bad name.

This seems to be the story of one right-wing veteren who is using his own war record to refute that of another who he disagrees with.

Nothing more.

But the fact is many people will read this letter and not do the research I and my friends did to find that he is lying in order to discredit and shame an honored vet who has nothing to be ashamed of, and doing so for his own political ends - to ensure a moderate liberal won't get into the White House.

Someone at TownHall didn't do his research in publishing this letter. That someone should share the blame here.

Please either print a retraction to this letter, or otherwise publish a clarification that Mr. Lackey was playing loose with the facts in his vitriolic diatribe.

Thank you.

Sean Huxter

Hours later, Jay Bryant replied to my letter thusly:

1. If you're offended by Glenn Lackey's pithy language, you must be a very gently reared person indeed. On his behalf, however, I am offended by your insulting pun on his name. 2. I am well aware of the context of Kerry's comments, just as he was well aware at the times that the "Winter Soldier" hearings were a phony pr stunt organized by pro-Ho troublemakers. 3. I have been sitting here for more than an hour answering letters on this article, almost all ofs them from Vietnam vets cheering that somebody is finally telling the truth. Yours is the very first to object to the article. 4. Therefore, you lose. Jay Bryant

Now I know TownHall.com is not exactly a fair and balanced source of commentary. In its own mission statement, it claims to be:

Townhall.com is the first truly interactive community on the Internet to bring Internet users, conservative public policy organizations, congressional staff, and political activists together under the broad umbrella of "conservative" thoughts, ideas and actions.

But is it acceptable that they publish this article by Mr Bryant who, in his own words, was "well aware of the context of Kerry’s comments..."? Is it acceptable that Mr. Bryant publish this letter in which he admits that he knows Mr. Kerry was misquoted? Judging from Mr. Bryant’s characterization of the Senate hearings, it seems his tin foil hat is firmly in place, but is that any excuse for him to publish blatant lies?

If, as he himself claims, Bryant was "well aware of the context of Kerry’s comments..." how could he possibly have allowed the publication of this letter, in an article in which he supports that letter?

I bring this to your attention, as this letter is easily available on TownHall.com for all to see with no one around to refute the misquotes within it. The right-wing audience of TownHall.com will not hear about my letter, nor will they likely do the research required to find out that Kerry did not witness those crimes, nor was he in any way complicit as the letter, and the article, implies but that he was taken out of context in the most vile way possible in order for the right to discredit him as a viable candidate against Bush.

Since there are very few web sites interested in publishing a left-wing viewpoint, (or even a moderate one these days), I thought I might call this to your attention in hopes that someone who is known to be fair and balanced will come forward to discredit this letter in a forum that many people will see. Otherwise many many people will be duped by this poor example of journalistic integrity that, alas, is overtaking this country.

Please review the article in question. I hope you can do something to correct the blatant misuse of "facts" in this letter, and by a columnist who should know better than to push forward something he knows to be a lie.

So far, TownHall.com has not responded to my letter.

Thank you.

Sean Huxter

New Quote
(February 20, 2004)

Correction. Soylent Green is YUMMY people.

The New Civil Rights Movement Focuses on Massachusetts
(February 12, 2004)

Yesterday I wrote the following letter to two Massachusetts representatives for my town.

Forgive my ignorance if I am e-mailing the incorrect parties.

According to MassEquality.org, you are an elected representative of the people of Massachusetts and have some influence in a decision that could make history and bring into the fold people in our society who have been marginalized and shoved aside for far too long.

We are in the midst of a new Civil Rights Movement in the United States. In the 1950s and 1960s Americans struggled against a prejudicial system which segregated black people from white people, a system of inequality that had manifested itself in laws that enforced such separation.

Decades later few people hold the opinion that that battle was not needed, and that desegregation was harmful to this society. In fact, few that supported segregation at the time proudly pronounce that opinion today. No, most parties involved agree that that civil rights movement was essential for the progress of this country.

Today the focus shifts from race to sexual orientation. Today we are debating whether or not homosexuals have rights. It seems that this question brings about an obvious answer. Of course they have rights.

Would you allow a black man to vote? (Most would answer: Yes.)
Would you allow a black man to marry? (Most would answer: Yes.)
Would you allow a gay man (or woman) to vote? (Most would answer: Yes.)
Would you allow a gay man (or woman) to marry? (If this answer is no, you must do some serious thinking as to why certain members of the taxed, voting public don’t enjoy the same rights the rest do.)

This morning’s Boston Globe has an excellent commentary by Derrick Jackson comparing this struggle by gays for acceptance and for their very rights to the Civil Rights movement in the 1960s. And it is very similar. The major difference may be that there are fewer homosexuals per capita than there were black people. Other than that, the parallels are obvious.

You can read the commentary here:

The major force that moves to prevent a small percentage of US citizens from gaining the rights held by all other US citizens seems to be the Christian Church. Using the Bible to quote from, they hold that homosexuals do not have equal rights as heterosexual humans.

However, that same book can be (and certainly has been) used to justify slavery, total domination of women in subjugation to their husbands, and many other things we no longer hold as acceptable in a country where the rights of its people are paramount. And supposedly equal. And in a country that holds a separation between the Church and state affairs (despite the imprinting of “In God We Trust” on its currency) this seems to be completely counter to everything this country stands for.

To amend this state’s Constitution to bar gays from marrying, or providing any compromise that would give them a lesser standing, such as initiating a concept of gay civil unions, is simply wrong. It would be an amazingly short-sighted move that would cause endless struggle in the future when the prudish and religious-based hang-ups dissolve and the inherent rights of all citizens are considered self-evident. At that time, they will have to re-ammend the constitution to strike down this misguided effort. Your children will pay for the mistakes you now make.

Let me make this clear. To compromise on these rights, ie: to accept civil unions for gays, but not marriage, is sending a very serious message to your voters, the people: “It’s the same bus. But you have to sit at the back.” There was a time this two-tiered system of rights was acceptable. Let us please not go back to those times.

I hate to resort to quoting George Orwell, but in his second-most-popular work, “Animal Farm” the animals who rule the farm began with a simple constitutional statement: “All Animals Are Equal”. They later amend their constitution to say “All animals are equal. But some are more equal than others.”

PLEASE do not allow Massachusetts to similarly amend its constitution.

Sean Huxter

(White, heterosexual male)

How Many Boobs Must Be Exposed?
(February 7, 2004)

So now someone is suing CBS because they were forced to watch Janet Jackson expose her breast. Seems to me that this is one more boob being exposed.

Wow. So let's analyze this a bit. What's the big?

I was reading to my daughter at the time. I didn't see it.

My wife saw it live. She says she barely saw Janet's breast, and wasn't even sure that it was a bare breast.

I heard about it, and someone sent me a link to the video. I watched the video. I saw (from a distance) what looked like a star-shaped metallic or foil pasty. Kind of like the one Lil Kim wore at the 1999 MTV Music Awards.

And the world exploded...

But here's the point. People weren't offended by what they saw at the SuperBowl. Because no one watching on TV actually saw very much. If they had just watched the Half-Time Show on TV, they could not possibly be reasonably offended. No. To be offended by this incident, you really had to work at it.

First, you had to download the video. Then you had to watch it. Then you had to download the slow-motion version. Then after you heard there was an HDTV broadcast, you had to download that. A little more detail. It was definitely a metallic covering of some kind. But that wasn't enough. To get further offended, you had to go to the Drudge Report (despite the revulsion caused by having to actually type in that address on your computer) and see a close-up of a very high-definition image and Wow. You found out that it was actually a decorative nipple-ring with pierced bar.

So let's go through the thought processes of the average person offended by this:

"Here I am, watching the Half-Time Show. Whu? What was that? Wait, I didn't quite catch it. Was that a breast? Hang on, I'll check the internet. Ah, here's a link to the video. Looks like a breast. Wait. Here's a link to the slo-mo video. Yeah. That's a breast. What's that on it? A pasty of some kind? Let's check the Drudge Report. They have an HDTV image. Oh yeah. That's a breast. But what's with the silver pasty? What? It's not a pasty? Let me see that.... look, they have a super-high-def blow-up. OH MY! That's not a pasty! That's a nipple-ring. I AM SO OFFENDED I WAS FORCED TO SEE THAT!"

Yeah.

To be offended by this, you really had to do your research. I mean you really had to work for it. So congratulations. Now you can finally be knowledgably indignant. Nice.

I wonder just how many more boobs will be exposed over this.

Cat Comfort
(February 7, 2004)

Nothing can look as comfortable as a cat.

Case in point. This is one of my cats. His name is Spike. He's about 14 years old. We recently discovered he is deaf. Must have happened in the last year. But it doesn't stop him from looking as comfortable as any of us wish we could ever be.

Feb 1, Noon	Feb 1, One hour later	Feb 7. One week later

Click on an image for an enlargement.

Lord of the Rings, Racist and Sexist?
(February 5, 2004)

I read this article about the Lord of the Rings film trilogy. "Lord of the Rings vs. Matrix - Patriarchy vs. the Rainbow Coalition"

Well, first of all, her argument falls down in its assumption that "The Matrix: Revolutions" was a better film than "Lord of the Rings: The Return of the King" which is so ridiculous as to make me want to laugh out loud and chortle... but then within its text, while lambasting Peter Jackson and his producers (of LOTR) for being sexist and racist, Ms. Lewis in describing "The Matrix" uses epithets such as "Eurotrash" and completely neglects the fact that all the "human" villains in the film are European white males.

It was all so ludicrous that I had to make the following reply to the author, which I posted to both the original source of the article as well as its reprinted source, at www.tolerance.org.

I read with fascination the article by Andrea Lewis, entitled "A Return of the White Patriarchy" and I agree wholeheartedly.

I believe more must be done to stamp out this rampant sexist racism in film and other areas of our lives.

For example, I believe we should boycott any production of Shakespeare's Hamlet unless either Hamlet, Gertrude or Claudius be played by a black actor and that Claudius (King of Denmark after murdering his wife's former husband) be played by a female Inuit actress. The third should be played by a Mexican, or perhaps Spanish actor. Maybe Antonio Banderas or Selma Hayek. Perhaps it would be better and much safer since he's characterized as a murderer, that Claudius be played after all by a white male.. just in case.

Further, Ophelia should be played by a Japanese or Chinese actress or actor, depending on who is available. I like either Michelle Yeow or Chou Yun Fat.

The fact that the story takes place in Medieval Denmark should be no excuse for a production company to get away with blatant sexist racism.

And, to my utter outrage, I note that the recent DVD Special Edition of "ROOTS" by Alex Haley had not one single white African slave. How did the producers of this DVD set get away with that outrageous behavior?

Keep the faith, sister. (Sorry, assuming you were a sister is sexist, for which I apologize.)

Keep the faith, brother.

Sean.

George Bush's View of the World
(February 4, 2004)

This is how George Dubbyuh sees the world. (Click image to see)

(My apologies to whoever created this. It was sent to me by e-mail. I'll gladly give credit to the creator. It's brilliant.)

Janet Jackson's Super Bowl Appearance (Boobgate)
(February 2, 2004)

Janet Jackson was singing with Justin Timberlake during a half-time show when most people were away reading to their kids (well, I was anyway). During one part of the song, Timberlake rips the covering off one of Jackson's breasts, exposing it to the public. The outrage was instantaneous. First, people thought it was a bared breast. Then, seconds later, images of the video were published on the web, and people could clearly see she had a star-shaped pasty over her nipple. Then, a high definition TV image was released showing that it was, in fact, a sunburst nipple-ring, with a metal bar through it. The only offensive thing about this, in my opinion, is that she mangled her breast in that way. All I can think is... OUCH! I hope she puts on her sweaters carefully! Now, the FCC is launching an investigation, but I'll bet their investigation won't cover why they refused to air the anti-Bush ad by MoveOn.org. That's the real offense here.

So let's recap:

1) Airing a TV ad showing a horse farting flame into a woman's face - OK
2) Airing a TV ad showing a dog owner siccing his pet on another man's testicles - OK
3) Airing a TV ad showing a man baring his breasts with make-up on them - OK
4) Airing a TV ad showing a chimpanzee sexually propositioning a human female - OK
5) Airing a TV ad complete with warnings about persistent painful erections that may require medical attention - OK
6) Refusing to air MoveOn.org's contraversial anti-Bush ad - OK
7) Janet Jackson exposing her pierced nipple on TV - The World Is Coming To A Slow And Painful End!

Does that about cover it?

Thought so.

Talk about a Tempest in a D-Cup! I wonder what the reaction would have been if the shirt was on the other boob?

Keisha Castle-Hughes Nominated for Best Actress Oscar!
(January 28, 2004)

"Whale Rider" is a very good famliy film. A story about a Maori village in search of a chief. The elderly chief, Koro's sons aren't worthy in his eyes to lead, and all of his hopes lie in a grandson. But when instead a grand-daughter is born, the chief washes his hands of her. And as the child's mother dies in childbirth, Koro's hopes of a great chief to succeed him are dashed. He raises the grand-daughter as his own but gives her little attention. His wife, however, loves the child dearly.

Paikea Apirana, (Pai, as her father calls her, after a legendary Maori hero, in defiance of his father, the chief's wishes) believes she is the successor, which of course is ridiculous. After all, she's female.

This film is a heartwarming tale of love, growth and acceptance.

But while the film is good, it probably doesn't deserve Oscar contention. Except for one thing:

Keisha Castle-Hughes, a thirteen-year-old actress who plays Pai, was an amazing thing to watch. Whether or not the movie grabs you as one of the best things you've seen on-screen this past year, her performance will. She exhibits a range of performance emotion that could teach most adult actors a thing or two. Her open, honest portrayal of a Maori proud of her heritage is unabashedly real and convincing.

There is a scene in which Pai has proudly prepared a performance in traditional Maori language and dress for her grandfather in front of her entire school. And he doesn't show up. She continues with the performance, with tears in her eyes, and for that scene alone, she deserves this nomination. But for her entire performance, she deserves the golden statue.

As I watched this film, I kept thinking "That's the best actress I've seen this year."

When the recent Oscar nominations were announced, I was overjoyed that Castle-Hughes got the nod. She is the youngest actress to be nominated for a lead role.

Cynic that I am, I will say that she will probably not win, although when Anna Paquin won for Best Supporting Actress at the age of 10 for "The Piano", the goodwill earned Oscar was overwhelming. However, I will say this: She should win.

If you haven't yet seen "Whale Rider", pick it up. It's a great family film.

See My 2003 Rants

All content of these pages © Sean Huxter.

Visitors