i love tsunami bomb: throwback to riding around in liz's car. mushy love song and its polar opposite, lemonade, which is a song that i truly love.
as predicted, work is hella boring without mish. i demand everyone reading this blog get gchat and chat me up. but i got invite
04 April 2012
DAY ONE HUNDRED AND TWENTY FIVE
"one story after another! like you, but boring!"
Watch me spit, classic lit, epic poems that don't rhyme AN AMAZING VIDEO
with a follow-up cartoon!
holy crap, this dog is cute.
bear stops lion attack!! who cares if not true?
Watch me spit, classic lit, epic poems that don't rhyme AN AMAZING VIDEO
with a follow-up cartoon!
holy crap, this dog is cute.
bear stops lion attack!! who cares if not true?
03 April 2012
DAY ONE HUNDRED AND TWENTY FOUR POST TWO
although i'd love to let the beauty of my logic statements stand alone today, i feel i must write about yet another brilliant change in american criminal law: strip search party!
the supreme court recently ruled that strip searches are okay after an arrest for any offense. breyer and lower courts helpfully laid out some of the offenses:
-violating a leash law
-driving without a license
-failure to pay child support
-riding a bicycle without a bell
-failure to use a turn signal
-driving with a noisy muffler
kennedy, in a spark of brilliance, noted that some of the most dangerous, dangerous criminals were first arrested for minor offenses. the example he chose to give? timothy mcveigh. of course, that makes sense, since mcveigh was - as we all remember - responsible for sneaking a bomb into the oklahoma city federal building after an arrest. hmm. for some reason the wikipedia page doesn't really say that. it says he was stopped for driving without a license and carrying a weapon, then quickly was identified as a suspect in the bombing, which was carried out via a truck bomb.
am i alone in thinking that: just because one dangerous criminal was later stopped for a somewhat minor offense (along with an offense that actually WOULD give police reasonable suspicion of a weapon) does not mean that ANY person arrested for a minor offense would then have the same propensity to have committed a dangerous crime? breyer does point out some pretty horrible offenses that people did to deserve being strip searched: trespassing! and by a nun no less! and in protest of the iraq war!
Kennedy does not stop there: "One of the terrorists involved in the Sept. 11 attacks was stopped and ticketed for speeding just two days before hijacking Flight 93,” Justice Kennedy added.
Kennedy! how brilliant. i should have considered that possibility. had the police just arrested him, strip searched him, and found nothing on him, then... well... uh... 9/11 wouldn't have happened? how is this a justification for strip searching people for minor offenses?
but, let's say he's right: people can be strip searched for minor traffic offenses. if they can be arrested and strip searched for failure to use a turn signal, they could surely be arrested and strip searched for causing a four-car pileup on a highway, no? and, even more egregiously, an individual who was arrested for theft, attempted destruction of property (id.), or drunk driving - such a person should - nay deserves to - be strip searched. because, clearly, the past minor arrest history of an individual guides whether they will turn out to be a terrorist (though, to be fair, i must say that if that's what kennedy's arguing, i have chosen two examples that kinda fit...).
the supreme court recently ruled that strip searches are okay after an arrest for any offense. breyer and lower courts helpfully laid out some of the offenses:
-violating a leash law
-driving without a license
-failure to pay child support
-riding a bicycle without a bell
-failure to use a turn signal
-driving with a noisy muffler
kennedy, in a spark of brilliance, noted that some of the most dangerous, dangerous criminals were first arrested for minor offenses. the example he chose to give? timothy mcveigh. of course, that makes sense, since mcveigh was - as we all remember - responsible for sneaking a bomb into the oklahoma city federal building after an arrest. hmm. for some reason the wikipedia page doesn't really say that. it says he was stopped for driving without a license and carrying a weapon, then quickly was identified as a suspect in the bombing, which was carried out via a truck bomb.
am i alone in thinking that: just because one dangerous criminal was later stopped for a somewhat minor offense (along with an offense that actually WOULD give police reasonable suspicion of a weapon) does not mean that ANY person arrested for a minor offense would then have the same propensity to have committed a dangerous crime? breyer does point out some pretty horrible offenses that people did to deserve being strip searched: trespassing! and by a nun no less! and in protest of the iraq war!
Kennedy does not stop there: "One of the terrorists involved in the Sept. 11 attacks was stopped and ticketed for speeding just two days before hijacking Flight 93,” Justice Kennedy added.
Kennedy! how brilliant. i should have considered that possibility. had the police just arrested him, strip searched him, and found nothing on him, then... well... uh... 9/11 wouldn't have happened? how is this a justification for strip searching people for minor offenses?
but, let's say he's right: people can be strip searched for minor traffic offenses. if they can be arrested and strip searched for failure to use a turn signal, they could surely be arrested and strip searched for causing a four-car pileup on a highway, no? and, even more egregiously, an individual who was arrested for theft, attempted destruction of property (id.), or drunk driving - such a person should - nay deserves to - be strip searched. because, clearly, the past minor arrest history of an individual guides whether they will turn out to be a terrorist (though, to be fair, i must say that if that's what kennedy's arguing, i have chosen two examples that kinda fit...).
DAY ONE HUNDRED AND TWENTY FOUR
in terms of behavior, it's sometimes pretty easy to predict what those who you know well will do. there are relationships and patterns that repeat ad nauseum. life is not really so much random things happening to random people, in my opinion, but events that, when contextualized, have a definite coherence and pattern.
i have used this to predict a series of actions that will take place over the next two weeks. i put it under my computer monitor, which is where all important life documents have gone for the last few months (to sit and think on). in ten days time, the extent of my predictions, i will remove it and highlight how many things i predicted to happen have. i'm not going to go with the straight up report-back on accuracy, but instead will count it right if i got the general gist of the 10 days (so, if i have something in the wrong order, but the general idea is there, i'll give myself that point). subsequent to writing this, i have issued a series of further predictions, which are more like formal logic chains:
Logical Chain 1
A ⇒ B
B ⇒ C
D ⇔ C
¬ A
¬ A
¬ A
(last three lines are a command)
Logical Chain 2
¬E⇔F
¬F⇒E
Logical Chain 3 (not so much a chain)
G ⊤
i have used this to predict a series of actions that will take place over the next two weeks. i put it under my computer monitor, which is where all important life documents have gone for the last few months (to sit and think on). in ten days time, the extent of my predictions, i will remove it and highlight how many things i predicted to happen have. i'm not going to go with the straight up report-back on accuracy, but instead will count it right if i got the general gist of the 10 days (so, if i have something in the wrong order, but the general idea is there, i'll give myself that point). subsequent to writing this, i have issued a series of further predictions, which are more like formal logic chains:
Logical Chain 1
A ⇒ B
B ⇒ C
D ⇔ C
¬ A
¬ A
¬ A
(last three lines are a command)
Logical Chain 2
¬E⇔F
¬F⇒E
Logical Chain 3 (not so much a chain)
G ⊤
02 April 2012
DAY ONE HUNDRED AND TWENTY THREE POST TWO
officemate's doing the central asian squat right now, after falling off her chair a couple of times. now, she's just doing yoga. now, she's just laying on the floor reading. i wish i had a camera.
we're starting a non-fiction book club which i thought was supposed to be a theory club, but unfortunately the club seems to think that de certeau's practice of everyday life is too heavy and that makes me sad because that's like... not at all :(
i have bir yeni cep telefonu and it doesn't work very well. as far as i can tell, the browser is so slow that it won't download anything at all.
we're starting a non-fiction book club which i thought was supposed to be a theory club, but unfortunately the club seems to think that de certeau's practice of everyday life is too heavy and that makes me sad because that's like... not at all :(
i have bir yeni cep telefonu and it doesn't work very well. as far as i can tell, the browser is so slow that it won't download anything at all.
DAY ONE HUNDRED AND TWENTY THREE
I have an idea for these mid-to-early-twentysomethings: don't date douches. this new york article, linked in, is much better and more interesting, and integrates a favored threat: "Jesus fucking Christ, what the fuck kind of stupid porn have you been watching? Did you just smack my kitty? Dumbass!" I vote that team vagina bump adopt the vagina slap as a threat.
This article breaks my heart. What kind of horrible mom is telling her young child that when she's skinny she's a different person?
i don't know if i blogged about the treyvon martin debacle going on back in the US, but a faithful reader sent in this article about hoods, which, as we know, are a totally valid reason for killing an unarmed 17 year old kid, but only if he's brown or black. these articles make me so sad, and then i start reading about other hate crimes against kids, so best you all do your own research.
An article about neurotics bemoaning the loss of our woody allen-like friends brings up some changes in the DSM as evidence they're disappearing. I got into a debate with someone once who obviously knew very little about actual mental health issues, who tried to argue that aspergers wasn't real (and wasn't on the autism spectrum). citing the dsm, i was asked how psychiatrists would know anyway... had i been the one to argue against it, i would have probably cited something like this article (and others) demonstrating the changing nature of psychiatry - removing terms, recategorizing and removing illnesses. or, in fact, the prime example that until 1973 homosexuality was listed as a mental health illness. fun story: when i was in high school and went to calvin college to use their library for research for my debate case (which was to pass a law banning harassment on the basis of gender affinity/sexual orientation), the books about being gay were all in the mental health section. eep.
i wonder whether nicholas kristof got this article idea from the change.org email sent out by alissa? i need to get off those stupid lists.
this post is not very cheery. fear not, i'm also reading about data havens and rogue, tiny, kinda-fake nations and will blog about that sometime soon.
This article breaks my heart. What kind of horrible mom is telling her young child that when she's skinny she's a different person?
i don't know if i blogged about the treyvon martin debacle going on back in the US, but a faithful reader sent in this article about hoods, which, as we know, are a totally valid reason for killing an unarmed 17 year old kid, but only if he's brown or black. these articles make me so sad, and then i start reading about other hate crimes against kids, so best you all do your own research.
An article about neurotics bemoaning the loss of our woody allen-like friends brings up some changes in the DSM as evidence they're disappearing. I got into a debate with someone once who obviously knew very little about actual mental health issues, who tried to argue that aspergers wasn't real (and wasn't on the autism spectrum). citing the dsm, i was asked how psychiatrists would know anyway... had i been the one to argue against it, i would have probably cited something like this article (and others) demonstrating the changing nature of psychiatry - removing terms, recategorizing and removing illnesses. or, in fact, the prime example that until 1973 homosexuality was listed as a mental health illness. fun story: when i was in high school and went to calvin college to use their library for research for my debate case (which was to pass a law banning harassment on the basis of gender affinity/sexual orientation), the books about being gay were all in the mental health section. eep.
i wonder whether nicholas kristof got this article idea from the change.org email sent out by alissa? i need to get off those stupid lists.
this post is not very cheery. fear not, i'm also reading about data havens and rogue, tiny, kinda-fake nations and will blog about that sometime soon.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)