Allright, all you mutha uckers ucking with my shi. Stand down. Or I'll be the biggest ucking itch on yo' ss that you've ever ucking seen.
And while I'm at it, stop ucking with my peeps. Cause I'll uck you up big time. No shi.
Flight of the Conchords
06 January 2008
05 January 2008
A blogger (and soldier's) farewell
Found this on fark.com, and it blew me away.
A blogger's farewell after his death in Iraq. Read it. Please.
From Mark Tonra's James
I didn't know Andy Olmsted. Or Sheena's Baba. But I know that the lives they touched were forever changed by the love they gave.
A blogger's farewell after his death in Iraq. Read it. Please.
From Mark Tonra's JamesI didn't know Andy Olmsted. Or Sheena's Baba. But I know that the lives they touched were forever changed by the love they gave.
04 January 2008
02 January 2008
Bullshit, plain and simple
UPDATED
I am *still* disgusted that such a decision could have ever been made in this country. Spanks to The Imp, I discovered that I was not the *only* one with knickers in a twist from an issue that happened in 1970. The good news is that the New Jersey Supreme Court *did* overturn the decision in 1971.
This article, as a social object, is causing quite a stir in the wankosphere. As of this moment, it's the most popular item on time.com. Wonder if they will do more to draw attention to the fact that this is OLD news?
Original post:
I'm disgusted.
I just read about the couple who were told by a judge that they couldn't adopt a child because of their religion - or more specifically, their lack of one.
As a rather famous fellow Virginian once wrote:
"[N]o man shall be compelled to frequent or support any religious worship, place, or ministry whatsoever, nor shall be enforced, restrained, molested, or burthened in his body or goods, nor shall otherwise suffer, on account of his religious opinions or belief; but that all men shall be free to profess, and by argument to maintain, their opinions in matters of religion, and that the same shall in no wise diminish, enlarge, or affect their civil capacities."
- Thomas Jefferson
Color me crazy, but I believe that adopting children falls within the realm of a "civil capacity". This couple had already proven themselves capable of adopting and raising one child. Who does this effing judge think he is to say that they aren't worthy of doing so again because of how they do or don't worship? Is he not familiar with the first amendment?
"The Establishment Clause of the First Amendment prohibits the establishment of a national religion by Congress or the preference of one religion over another, or religion over non-religion. Prior to the enactment of the Fourteenth Amendment, and for 60 years thereafter, the courts took the position that the substantive protections of the Bill of Rights did not apply to actions by state governments. Subsequently, under the "incorporation doctrine", certain selected provisions were applied to states. It was not, however, until the middle and later years of the twentieth century that the Supreme Court began to interpret the establishment and free exercise clauses in such a manner as to restrict substantially the promotion of religion by state governments. (For example, in the Board of Education of Kiryas Joel Village School District v. Grumet, 512 U.S. 687 (1994), Justice David Souter, writing for the majority, concluded that "government should not prefer one religion to another, or religion to irreligion".) - From Wikipedia
I'm vehemently intolerant of intolerance. And yes, that makes me a hypocrite. But I'm a happy one. This judge failed to do his job, and is foisting his intolerance on others in the face of legal precedent. Here's hoping the New Jersey Supreme Court smells the bullshit for what it is.
/rant mode off
From Hugh MacLeod's gapingvoid.com
I am *still* disgusted that such a decision could have ever been made in this country. Spanks to The Imp, I discovered that I was not the *only* one with knickers in a twist from an issue that happened in 1970. The good news is that the New Jersey Supreme Court *did* overturn the decision in 1971.
This article, as a social object, is causing quite a stir in the wankosphere. As of this moment, it's the most popular item on time.com. Wonder if they will do more to draw attention to the fact that this is OLD news?
Original post:
I'm disgusted.
I just read about the couple who were told by a judge that they couldn't adopt a child because of their religion - or more specifically, their lack of one.
As a rather famous fellow Virginian once wrote:
"[N]o man shall be compelled to frequent or support any religious worship, place, or ministry whatsoever, nor shall be enforced, restrained, molested, or burthened in his body or goods, nor shall otherwise suffer, on account of his religious opinions or belief; but that all men shall be free to profess, and by argument to maintain, their opinions in matters of religion, and that the same shall in no wise diminish, enlarge, or affect their civil capacities."
- Thomas Jefferson
Color me crazy, but I believe that adopting children falls within the realm of a "civil capacity". This couple had already proven themselves capable of adopting and raising one child. Who does this effing judge think he is to say that they aren't worthy of doing so again because of how they do or don't worship? Is he not familiar with the first amendment?
"The Establishment Clause of the First Amendment prohibits the establishment of a national religion by Congress or the preference of one religion over another, or religion over non-religion. Prior to the enactment of the Fourteenth Amendment, and for 60 years thereafter, the courts took the position that the substantive protections of the Bill of Rights did not apply to actions by state governments. Subsequently, under the "incorporation doctrine", certain selected provisions were applied to states. It was not, however, until the middle and later years of the twentieth century that the Supreme Court began to interpret the establishment and free exercise clauses in such a manner as to restrict substantially the promotion of religion by state governments. (For example, in the Board of Education of Kiryas Joel Village School District v. Grumet, 512 U.S. 687 (1994), Justice David Souter, writing for the majority, concluded that "government should not prefer one religion to another, or religion to irreligion".) - From Wikipedia
I'm vehemently intolerant of intolerance. And yes, that makes me a hypocrite. But I'm a happy one. This judge failed to do his job, and is foisting his intolerance on others in the face of legal precedent. Here's hoping the New Jersey Supreme Court smells the bullshit for what it is.
/rant mode off
From Hugh MacLeod's gapingvoid.com
01 January 2008
Be Happy. Be New. Be.
From Mark Tonra's JamesI did passing fair with last year's resolution, at least until October or so. For this year, I'll keep it even simpler, and shoot for what is illustrated here.
For 2008, my resolution is to be happy. And to be new. Here's wishing the same for all y'all.
31 December 2007
Social Objects
Hugh MacLeod's post on Social Objects is fantastic. It perfectly describes how human beings start conversations and getting to know, based on things (objects) we mutually cathect.
And speaking of Social Objects, it's no secret that one of my favorites is Orson Scott Card's Ender's Game. In the Ender series, OSC posits that we're connected to other people and things in this universe by way of philotic twines: invisible yet tangible connections based on the mutual love we share for each other or for - dare I say it? - social objects. (Read more at Wikipedia under the heading "Philotic Web".)
Rachel Bellow's comment on Hugh's post really spoke to me:
". . . Social objects are the particular manifestation of shared meaning, right? So that suggests there's a drive underlying all these manifestations....that the social object is not, in itself, the drive. The need for meaning...specifically shared meaning...is a deep human impulse that will, invariably, manifest in some form or another. If not this social object, another. Social networks like Facebook are simply evidence of that quest. Aren't they simply forums where the quest for shared meaning can coalesce and result in manifestation (social objects)?
People tend to be conscious of the social object more than they are of the underlying impulse that led them to it. The search for meaning--a purpose that radiates beyond the limited confines of the self--lies at the center of all human interaction. It seems to me that identifying the nature of that impulse, what sort of meaning is in play at any given time, is really important....and helps us create brilliant social objects to express it, specifically. I imagine that what attracts you to Saul Bellow is the way he expresses his own constant, agonizing quest for meaning...a way of expressing that angst that is similar to your own, that allows you to join him, rather than simply watch with admiration. And so the woman who likes Bellow too must want to soak in that particular bath of meaning as well...which is what attracts you to her. It's the underlying taste for that particular form of meaning that being an SB fan indicates, and to which you respond. Henderson the Rain King isn't the point. Neither is Saul Bellow.
What is the point is that you and this woman share a taste for that particular worldview. That shared taste promises more social object creation between you two in the future. What I'm saying is that I think it's worth understanding at all times what form of meaning a social object is indicating....so that future social objects can can be created in its wake."
Summed up, as C.S. Lewis would put it: "Friendship is born at that moment when one person says to another: What! You, too? Thought I was the only one."
Rock on, Hugh. Rock on, OSC. And rock on, Rachel. I grok yer concepts muchly.
P.S.: whitenoise? Your FAQ about why you're here and what mark you'll leave? For me, I think it centers around this social object thang. To find meaning and those who share it with you. What's more, to create a social object that resonates meaning with others.
From Hugh MacLeod's gapingvoid.com
And speaking of Social Objects, it's no secret that one of my favorites is Orson Scott Card's Ender's Game. In the Ender series, OSC posits that we're connected to other people and things in this universe by way of philotic twines: invisible yet tangible connections based on the mutual love we share for each other or for - dare I say it? - social objects. (Read more at Wikipedia under the heading "Philotic Web".)
Rachel Bellow's comment on Hugh's post really spoke to me:
". . . Social objects are the particular manifestation of shared meaning, right? So that suggests there's a drive underlying all these manifestations....that the social object is not, in itself, the drive. The need for meaning...specifically shared meaning...is a deep human impulse that will, invariably, manifest in some form or another. If not this social object, another. Social networks like Facebook are simply evidence of that quest. Aren't they simply forums where the quest for shared meaning can coalesce and result in manifestation (social objects)?
People tend to be conscious of the social object more than they are of the underlying impulse that led them to it. The search for meaning--a purpose that radiates beyond the limited confines of the self--lies at the center of all human interaction. It seems to me that identifying the nature of that impulse, what sort of meaning is in play at any given time, is really important....and helps us create brilliant social objects to express it, specifically. I imagine that what attracts you to Saul Bellow is the way he expresses his own constant, agonizing quest for meaning...a way of expressing that angst that is similar to your own, that allows you to join him, rather than simply watch with admiration. And so the woman who likes Bellow too must want to soak in that particular bath of meaning as well...which is what attracts you to her. It's the underlying taste for that particular form of meaning that being an SB fan indicates, and to which you respond. Henderson the Rain King isn't the point. Neither is Saul Bellow.
What is the point is that you and this woman share a taste for that particular worldview. That shared taste promises more social object creation between you two in the future. What I'm saying is that I think it's worth understanding at all times what form of meaning a social object is indicating....so that future social objects can can be created in its wake."
Summed up, as C.S. Lewis would put it: "Friendship is born at that moment when one person says to another: What! You, too? Thought I was the only one."
Rock on, Hugh. Rock on, OSC. And rock on, Rachel. I grok yer concepts muchly.
P.S.: whitenoise? Your FAQ about why you're here and what mark you'll leave? For me, I think it centers around this social object thang. To find meaning and those who share it with you. What's more, to create a social object that resonates meaning with others.
From Hugh MacLeod's gapingvoid.com
25 December 2007
Merry Ho Ho
If Happy Bunny says it with a holiday hat on, then it's officially a holiday greeting and not just a Cheek theme. k?
Merry Ho Ho to all y'all.
Merry Ho Ho to all y'all.
24 December 2007
Christmas Back Home
Am spending the week at Carolina Mom's, as is bro Buckwheat. May not be "home" in terms of where I grew up, but it's indeed one of my homes. As home(s) is(are) where the heart is.
From Randall Munroe's xkcd.com
From Randall Munroe's xkcd.com
Buckwheat featured in Dilbert today!
Ineffingcredible. My brother Buckwheat's likeness is featured in today's Dilbert strip. Go on. Tell me it doesn't look like him. I dare ya.
(He's the forehead guy, if there's any doubt.)
(He's the forehead guy, if there's any doubt.)
18 December 2007
Misplacing
From Toothpaste Before DinnerI'm misplacing myself, these days. Looking forward to downtime next week.
17 December 2007
Bite Me, Part One
From Stephan Pastis' Pearls Before SwineI have the *perfect* holiday t-shirt. Snap to follow soon. Spanks to Pid for drawing this comic jewel to my immediate attention.
12 December 2007
10 December 2007
06 December 2007
You're the Man
Spanks to MontanaMan for bringing this jewel to my attention. Posting it here is NOT an endorsement that this is the kind of man Cheek seeks.
04 December 2007
Love's Illusions
Well, whitenoise, here's what Hugh MacLeod's had to say on the subject: (From Hugh MacLeod's Gaping Void)
03 December 2007
02 December 2007
Dating is hard in any season
Stephan Pastis' Pearls Before SwineIt's hard to ever feel sympathy for Rat, but this made me approximate it.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
