Tuesday, August 31, 2010

Time to eat my words - well, one of 'em, anyway

I just came across a fascinating bit of trivia, worth repeating here. It comes from the book "What in the Word?" by Charles Harrington Elster, and concerns the origin of the word aluminum. Where I grew up, and pretty much everywhere in the world except the U.S., the word is spelled aluminium - with that extra "i," it's obviously pronounced differently as well. I've always laughed at what I thought was yet another American abuse of the Queen's English. But, no...

Seems there was a story going around that in the early days of Reynolds Aluminium, a clerk placed a large order for company stationery, and misspelled the word in question - Aluminum! Because the order was so large, the company decided to let it be and, if questioned, merely assert that this was - yes - the American spelling of the word! "What in the Word?" refutes this notion - here is the real explanation:

"...It's complete poppycock. Sir Humphrey Davy coined aluminum in 1812, based on Latin alumen, aluminis, which meant "alum" (potassium aluminum sulfate). The variant aluminium with the additional i appeared that same year "as a deliberate alteration," one etymological source says, "on the analogy of other names of elements, such as sodium, magnesium, potassium, all coined earlier by Davy." (Kind of like nucular coming about because of false analogy with muscular, molecular, etc.) So the EC (etymologically correct) form is the American one. (Suck on that one, limeys.)"

However... Wikipedia, interestingly, redirects a search for aluminum to aluminium, thereby inferring a preference for the British spelling. But the article itself seems to take a neutral stance on the topic.

And... Since I have a permanent link to World Wide Words over there on the left, I have to give a nod to its entry for this damnable word.

It's gonna take time for me to get used to aluminum, but this one I have to concede! (Btw, if you're interested in the word limey, click it!)

Equal opportunity filth

Seems my disgusting picture two items down was a hit. As an equal opportunity purveyor of gross genitalia, I present to you this picture, this time courtesy of Fugly... Again, captions for this one are welcomed; use the comments button below.

Monday, August 30, 2010

Obama's mistake

I came across this column from E.J. Dionne, Jr. at Truthdig. It's well worth a read - he explains, very coherently, how Obama has messed up in his first 20 months of governance. This paragraph really hit me:
There was a revealing moment in early August when Obama told an audience at a Texas fundraiser: "We have spent the last 20 months governing. They spent the last 20 months politicking." Referring to the impending elections, he added: "Well, we can politick for three months. They've forgotten I know how to politick pretty good."
E.J. then continues:
Obama’s mistake is captured by that disdainful reference to "politicking." In a democracy, separating governing from "politicking" is impossible.
And then proceeds to explain why. As I say, worth a read.

Bonus to cheer you up: Also from Truthdig today, Eugene Robinson's comments on Glenn Beck's 15 minutes of fame at the ego-rific Beckfest held at the Lincoln Memorial this weekend. Also check out some of the sights and sounds.

Sunday, August 29, 2010

Saturday, August 28, 2010

Yes - Google does it yet again!

Besides the unveiling two days ago of their integration of Gmail with a subset of the voice calling functionality found in Google Voice, Google has delivered another coup - this time by providing a separate search feature called Google Realtime.

Realtime delivers virtually instantaneous results from searches at sites that host continuously updated information, like posts from the Twits (oops) Twitterers. Read more about it here. And here.

They are currently rolling the service out, but it's available to all by going to this special page. It seems that this will be the actual page.

Google, as well as other search engines (e.g. Bing) have done this for awhile, but Google is the first to separate the feature from its main search page. You can read about the advantages of this approach in the "here" links I cite above. One more here! And hints on how to use it here.

One thing I really love is a timeline slider (which you can vaguely see above the search results in the pic at top), allowing you to see when stories on a particular topic ebb and peak, and which allows you to time-travel based on your choice of date/time.

Tuesday, August 24, 2010

Stem cell research banned again

I'm stunned - talk about a huge step backwards. Obama's executive order from a few months ago which allowed federal funding of stem cell research to happen (thus ending Bush's ban) has been overturned. In fact, it appears that it may now be even more restrictive than what Bush did.

Here's the NYTimes article today which talks about it. I'm just not in the mood to rant today. All I can say is that this ruling sucks - big time.

Saturday, August 21, 2010

Four Fs today, no Five, oh dear, six: Flatulence I, Fact-checking, For sale, Flatulence II

(Links are embedded in the subheads below.)

Flatulence I: Facts about a "fartiste," Le Petomane, in 19th-century France who wowed, so to speak, his audiences with his amazing sphincter.

Fact-checking: Here's an interesting story about fastidious fact-checking - one of the reasons I rely on the New York Times as much as I do.

For sale: Apparently, J.D. Salinger's toilet is up for sale online. Price? $1 million. Shit!

Flatulence II: A Chinese inventor has come up with, yes, a fart silencer! Instructions are to insert the thing up one's bum prior to the, um, event. The user is also encouraged to soak a cotton ball with one's favorite perfume and pop that into the device to, well, mask the sometimes-inevitable malodorous result.

Ya know, I really do try to rise above the level of poop humor, but the 'net is just such a rich source, and I'm still growing up - not a good combination. But hey, there's one serious item here today ... your task is finding it!

Thursday, August 19, 2010

Sarah Palin is a foxymoron!

Foxymoron! Yes, I stole that coinage from the mother of a ten-year-old here. Hey, whaddya want from me? That's fuckin' brilliant, man!

We're talking about how Sarah continues to outdo herself with idiotic, made-up words. Her latest is a twit (oops) tweet referring to feminists as a "cackle of rads." Say what?! She is getting as bad as, if not worse than, our old friend Dubya. Palinisms are going to become a cottage industry, you can rest assured of that! I am enjoying the comments about this. One in particular gives us the made-up phrase "persnuffle of keplectitude" - beautiful!!!

"Cackle of rads" is definitely worth a Google! It makes "refudiate" look positively professorial. (And speaking of professorial, I highly doubt that she knows what the diacritical 'e' acute is in the word "passé" above, let alone how to accomplish it on a keyboard. It, no doubt, was the work of the autocorrect function on her phone/computer.)

As Keith Olbermann points out, she is too damn clueless to realize that the feminists she tirelessly puts down are the very same people who have given her many of the freedoms she enjoys.

Ooooh, Sarah: Please! Don't! Stop! Please ... don't ... stop! Please don't stop! I may even start following your twits (oops again!) tweets.

Tuesday, August 17, 2010

Will sanity ever return?

So now the latest brouhaha is about the "mosque" near ground zero. ("Mosque" in inverted quotes because it's not a mosque - it's an interfaith cultural center, primarily designed to promote communication between all faiths. This is a key point that most people - conveniently - are choosing to ignore.)

On Friday, Obama made a statement about preservation of equal rights, and our sacred (!) obligation to respect people's choice of religion. Now - he certainly could have been clearer about what he was saying (considering the need these days to dumb down anything aimed at the pathetic level of intelligence of the masses), but still. He was most definitely not making a comment about the wisdom of placing the center nearby ground zero - he was merely pointing out a truth that, clearly, was inconvenient to many people. On Saturday, he clarified his intent, but of course it was too late by then.

So where do we stand right now (Tuesday)? Well, the Sarah Palins of the world are, of course, gleeful, and making hay of this tempest in a teapot. Sadly, though, many Democrats are also "disagreeing" with Obama. Why? Well, there's an election coming up soon, and they are forced to kowtow to the "will" of their constituents - while they privately agree with Obama's statement, they dare not say so. This two-faced behavior is, at best, disturbing and, at worst, downright disgusting. But that's the reality of the world we live in these days.

So. You interested in my opinion? I don't care - here goes! Of course Obama is correct - freedom of religion is a key component of the commitment that this country has embraced lo these many years. Should the center be built near ground zero? In my humble opinion, it should not matter. But hey - I don't live in NYC, which means that I don't have a good "read" of the way native New Yorkers feel. Perhaps it does hurt enough of them to have the center there. Perhaps many of them simply don't care. Perhaps there's enough of a ground-swell of them to passionately feel that it needs to be there. I simply do not know, and don't pretend that I ever will. Bottom line: This is a local issue, and I am sure that Manhattanites are perfectly capable of handling this on their own. So here's a humble suggestion: Why don't the rest of us just back off, and let them make the decision?

Not a minaret in sight!
Ya know, it's interesting how people will modify their views based on how convenient it is for them. As Robert Wexler (D-FL) said in connection with the Terry Schiavo case some time ago: "In the process, they [Republicans] have decided that the rule of law is only worth respecting if they agree with the results."

And, to take an extreme, silly, funny and hypothetical example (but, I think effectively, points out the idiocy of this): Remember the recent scandal of Catholic priests and pedophilia? Well, I have yet to see anybody protesting the erection (!) of a Catholic church next to a high school... [Credit for this goes to Jon Stewart's show on the Comedy Channel.] Extreme, silly, funny and hypothetical - yes. Does it make its point? Indubitably! But let's get real: How would Muslims feel about the presence of a cathedral at ground zero? Would we even care? Bear in mind that "Muslim" very definitely does not equal the minority of those extremists called al-Qa'ida. (I note, too, another one of those convenient arguments: Many in the anti-Mosque crowd are saying - substitute your own variables for x and y - "How would x feel if a y was built in their country?" This is a specious argument because of one simple fact: We are talking about the U.S., and the U.S. only. Let's not - conveniently! - lose sight of that fact.)

Maybe a European viewpoint will help balance your take on this. Or, how about this? The NYTimes, after all, is both close to the issue - and sane! And, as always, I'd like to hear what you have to say - you know where to click to comment!

Monday, August 16, 2010

A selection for your reading delight

Once again, just a randumb selection of nonsense...

Why Facebook is a bad idea. It's all here.

Dancing pi. This one just grabbed my attention. Dunno why! >>>

More to come...

Sunday, August 15, 2010

To P or NP, that is the question...

Interesting how two disparate fields like mathematics and philosophy can sometimes collide.

The dilemma? Is P≠NP - or not?

P≠NP vs P=NP poses the following question: If there is a problem that has this property - whereby you could recognize the correct answer when someone gives it to you - then is there some way to automatically find that correct answer?

Someone uses the useful analogy of a jigsaw puzzle: Solving the jigsaw takes time and effort, but determining whether you solved the problem correctly is merely a matter of glancing at the result. You know in an instant whether you got it right. Can we automate that? And can we automate the very essence of creativity? Food for thought. Read more about it here.

While we're at it, how about the Poincare Conjecture?

Or, how random is Pi? Can the value of Pi be legislated? Seems Indiana thought so... And, more fun Pi pics here (scroll down a bit). [Side thought: What does the word "random" really mean? Is there really such a thing as true randomness? Here's a place to start pondering this.]

Who said mathematics is boring?!?!

Friday, August 13, 2010

Odd how this works

I just went to a site with a petition for signing support for Prop. 8 - i.e. those against same-sex marriage. But when I tried to submit my viewpoint (of course, the opposite of what they wanted to hear), I got "an unexpected error has occurred..." and my view was not posted. Hmm. Here's what I said:
Overturn Prop. 8 now.
NOTE: This is an opposing viewpoint - i.e. it agrees with Nancy Pelosi, Harry Reid, etc. The content is, however, addressed to those who support Prop. 8 because they are the ones who need to hear a reasonable, opposing viewpoint.
Proposition 8 REMOVES rights from the Constitution - that is not a value that U.S. citizens should support, much less be proud of. Just because this goes against your beliefs, it is NOT a reason to be bigoted about this.

Recognize that, by removing this right from the equal protection clause, you are embarking on a slippery slope that could, some day, end up in a decision AGAINST you - perhaps because of your religious beliefs, the color of your skin, or whatever. There is a reason the 14th Amendment is there, as well as the fact that it has been challenged 14 times in the past, and those challenges have been struck down every time.

And please do not try and bring religion into this - you do this when it suits you, but refuse to when it does not. The separation of church and state is key to the way this country is run. Regardless of any particular personal viewpoint, this separation MUST be adhered to, like it or not.

I understand and sympathize with your concern, but sometimes you just have to accept things that you do not believe in, particularly when you are displaying bigotry like this.

PLEASE - just grow up. You are all behaving like children who cannot get their way. It's embarrassing and sad.
So. I have no doubt that their software spotted the phrase "overturn Prop. 8" and decided that it could not swallow the truth. If you like, see what, if anything, you can do at this site. Let me know if you get any interesting results!!!

Now here's an interesting twist...

It seems that, in the Prop. 8 case, the "defendants" may not even have the right to appeal! Why? Well, it turns out that they were never named in the lawsuit, and therefore never actually sued. The defendant in the case was the State of California, and they have no interest in appealing. Oops. This came to my attention via The Wall Street Journal, of all places. Read about it here! The San Francisco Chronicle article is also worth a read.

The outcome of this is gonna be very interesting!

Thursday, August 12, 2010

Penis measuring device

Apparently rulers are a crude way to measure your penis. I found a patent for, yes, a "penile measuring device." I think the best way to describe this thing is to quote directly from the patent:
"A volumetric measuring device for measuring a body part. The device includes a fluid container filled with fluid. The fluid container has a body part opening for permitting the insertion of a body part and a displaced fluid opening for permitting the flow of fluid that has been displaced as the result of inserting the body part. A watertight barrier covers the body part opening and maintains a watertight seal over the body part opening while the body part is being inserted. The volumetric measurement is determined by measuring the amount of displaced fluid after the insertion of the body part through the body part opening. In a preferred embodiment, the body part being measured is an erect penis."
You can read the actual patent, #7147609, courtesy of Google Patents. The claims are fun to read, and you must look at the drawings, particularly Figs. 12-15. So there you go! Read more about it here and here - yes, that really is The Washington Post!

(No, that picture on the right is not the device in question - that's just a silly toy you can buy here for a mere £1.17. Yes, that's Pounds Sterling.)

Update: I took another look at this patent, and then tried Google's search mechanism for more of this sort of thing. You can do it too! Just go to the Google Patent page, and type [penis]* - or your favorite body part - into the search box. The first hit comes up with a patent that begins with the following startling claim:
"What is claimed is:
1. A penis erection assisting device comprising sealing means for sealingly accommodating a penis therein, said sealing means having an opening at one end thereof to insert the penis, extracting means connected to said sealing means for extracting air within said sealing means, an expandable circular bag member provided at the opening of said sealing means, and exhaling means for supplying extracted air by said extracting means into said circular bag member to expand said circular bag member..."
"Sealingly"? How many times is "sealing" used in that paragraph?

* Some time ago, Google tried to instil a new standard for quoting text that had to be inserted, for example, into a search box. This would replace the clumsy "xxx" (without the quotes) nonsense that we often see. The idea was to use square brackets to indicate that what is inside the brackets is what should be inserted, and not the brackets themselves. I kinda like this notion, so am using it here.

Prop. 8 stay lifted

Arnold Schwarzenegger
The stay on the Proposition 8 decision has been lifted, effective 5pm on August 18th. This means that same-sex marriage can resume in California, unless the appeals court acts before 5pm on the 18th. I doubt that will happen.

It's interesting to note that Arnold Schwarzenegger (CA Governor) and Jerry Brown (CA Attorney General) urged the judge, Vaughn Walker, to lift the stay immediately.

See my earlier posts about this here and here.


Wednesday, August 11, 2010

Does God exist?

Go(o)d grief!
An interesting philosophical question, and one which I am nowhere near qualified to comment on. So I'm going to leave it up to this article!

Just one more thing (who could resist this?): Bill O'Reilly claims that he is proof that God exists!!! Who'da thunk?!

Tuesday, August 10, 2010

More on tracking cookies

Some of you may remember my post about tracking cookies. Yesterday, USA Today weighed in on the topic here, with an opposing viewpoint, here. Personally, I think the opposing view presents a very weak case, and my opinion of tracking cookies still stands.

By hosting advertising on this site, I am forced to allow third-party cookies in my browser, which is a bit hypocritical. Consequently, I have decided to remove advertising, and turn third-party cookies off. This will stop Google from making me one of the "bad guys" and, more importantly, prevent advertisers from tracking my web browsing behavior (it is, after all, a two-way street). My readers' privacy is important to me - in fact, everyone's privacy and anonymity on the 'net is important. Without it, we're all screwed.

If you look at my earlier post, you will see that I enumerate the number of tracking cookies that were on my machine at the time - 85. I removed all of them, and, a few minutes ago, just ran the same scan (using Spybot). I already have 36 new third-party cookies! (Remember, once they're there, they are often updated - which means the number of times they have refined their ability to track my interests is much higher than 36!)

The USA Today editorial explains why tracking cookies are not a good thing, and why it is important that you protect yourself from this sordid behavior. They also discuss the amazing accuracy and ingenuity of the trackers, and how this could be a "slippery slope" to uglier behavior. It is important to recognize that, even now, it is possible for these companies to identify you personally, which I find very scary. And detestable.

Safe ... ?
My earlier post, linked above, explains how to fix this - I strongly suggest that you take some time to add this level of prophylaxis to your computer. Call it "safe browsing," if you will!

And, for those of a more technical bent, this paper from Harvard is interesting.

Monday, August 9, 2010

Sarah Palin stand-up!!!

Mouthy Monica!
Here's a good one - a stand-up cardboard cutout of our friend Sarah!!! There's just gotta be a good place to display this cow. All suggestions welcome!

They even describe her as "20x69" - a reference, perhaps, to how many times she has, well, you know ... done a "Monica"?

Cheap at half the price!!!

Sunday, August 8, 2010

More on Prop. 8

I don't want to sound like a stuck record, but the smackdown of Prop. 8 really is ground-breaking for all those of sound mind who believe that the 14th Amendment actually means something - be they gay or straight, conservative or liberal. I'm not gonna comment further; instead, I'm going to leave that up to Eugene Robinson, a Washington Post / New York Times columnist. I urge you to read his article, here. It's important, and captures, in my opinion, the essence of what this is all about.

Quoting from his article: "Bigotry has suffered a grievous blow." and "Walker [the judge] stepped up to the plate and swung for the fences. He hit a home run."

Thursday, August 5, 2010

Proposition 8: Unconscionable and untenable

Important note: While I am thrilled to see that my fellow gay friends will one day be able to marry, right now I have no personal interest in getting married. What is important to me is the fact that a group of people were being denied rights that are enshrined in California's constitution - clearly an unconscionable and untenable situation. Additionally, I fail to understand why this is such a big deal; how can allowing same-sex marriage harm society? The way some of these idiots are behaving, you'd think the end of the world is nigh! (See cartoons at end of this post.)

Background for my foreign readers: Recently, an election in California resulted in the passage of Proposition 8, by a mere 2% majority. Prop. 8 enacted a constitutional amendment which banned same-sex marriage in California, effectively removing the rights of a group - talk about a step backwards! The map on the right shows which counties voted for same-sex marriage (red ones) and those against it (green) - it's interesting to note that the coastal counties are clearly the most progressive (the two inland ones are Mono and Alpine, just south of Lake Tahoe, a large gambling mecca). The result was challenged in court primarily on the principle that this set up an inequality between two groups, which is unconstitutional. It's a bit confusing, but if you are "pro-Prop. 8" you are against same-sex marriage and, of course, if you are "anti-Prop. 8" you are for same-sex marriage! The result of the trial? The proposition was overturned, which means the constitutional amendment no longer applies. So: "pro-Prop. 8" lost and "anti-Prop. 8" won!!! (However, the decision has been stayed for a while to allow for the inevitable appeal, so no marriages quite yet.) You can read more about Prop. 8 here.

Yes, indeedy - much partying in the gay ghettoes around the country last night - and for good reason: Proposition 8 has now been overturned! The judge, Vaughn Walker (who is gay) presided over an extremely thoughtful and thorough trial. Unfortunately for the opposition (the "Yes on 8" folks - those against same-sex marriage), they were only able to provide a very weak case. That, of course, is because there really is no solid basis for this silliness. The judge tried really hard to give both sides a fair shot, and, imho, did a really good job.

Today's Huffington Post writes about it here from the viewpoint of whether it was wise to make this bold a move as quickly as they did - an interesting argument. Also, I especially like this sentence: "Piece by piece, the 138 page decision tears apart the logic of the traditional marriage movement and exposes it as the offensive and homophobic club it really is."

You can find the judge's ruling here (PDF) and here (HTML). It's 138 pages long, and, so far, I have only skimmed it. Some interesting bits I found:

On equal treatment, and the "inferiority" of gay people: "Many of the purported interests identified by proponents are nothing more than a fear or unarticulated dislike of same-sex couples. Those interests that are legitimate are unrelated to the classification drawn by Proposition 8. The evidence shows that, by every available metric, opposite-sex couples are not better than their same-sex counterparts; instead, as partners, parents and citizens, opposite-sex couples and same-sex couples are equal. FF 47-50. Proposition 8 violates the Equal Protection Clause because it does not treat them equally. [...] In the absence of a rational basis, what remains of proponents’ case is an inference, amply supported by evidence in the record, that Proposition 8 was premised on the belief that same-sex couples simply are not as good as opposite-sex couples. FF 78-80. Whether that belief is based on moral disapproval of homosexuality, animus towards gays and lesbians or simply a belief that a relationship between a man and a woman is inherently better than a relationship between two men or two women, this belief is not a proper basis on which to legislate." (Underlined emphasis mine.)

And, the all-important conclusion: "Proposition 8 fails to advance any rational basis in singling out gay men and lesbians for denial of a marriage license. Indeed, the evidence shows Proposition 8 does nothing more than enshrine in the California Constitution the notion that opposite-sex couples are superior to same-sex couples. Because California has no interest in discriminating against gay men and lesbians, and because Proposition 8 prevents California from fulfilling its constitutional obligation to provide marriages on an equal basis, the court concludes that Proposition 8 is unconstitutional." (Again, underlined emphasis mine.)

So there we have it! Now, the case will go to the 9th District Court of Appeals who are sure to uphold the decision - I say this because the appeals process only allows analysis of the final judgment; it's gonna be tough to argue against that! Then, it goes to the U.S. Supreme Court, who will more than likely accept the case. We will probably end up with a 5-4 decision in this conservative court, but the big question is who will get the 5 and who will get the 4?!

The 5-4 question is an interesting one. Justice Anthony Kennedy was appointed by Reagan, and is generally considered to be conservative. However, he has been known to side with liberals, particularly on social issues, and therefore is the wild card or "swing vote" here. It should be noted that he voted correctly (you know what I mean!) in the recent Lawrence v. Texas case involving legalization of sodomy, and was also a proponent of Roe v. Wade. So, I'm gonna be an optimist and say that he will vote "Aye!" for same-sex marriage. Here's hoping...

Wednesday, August 4, 2010

BREAKING NEWS: Proposition 8 overturned

Yes! Yes! Yes! Yes! Yes!

The constitutional amendment that banned same-sex marriage - Proposition 8 - has been overturned by the California Supreme Court. It will, of course, be appealed in the District 9 Court of Appeals. After that, it goes to the U.S. Supremes - I think it's highly likely they will accept the case. More to come...

Tuesday, August 3, 2010

Idiotic move by the FBI

So it seems there is a controversy about Wikipedia's use of the FBI logo in its article about them. This is a funny story. The FBI got upset about Wikipedia's use of their logo, and sent them a threatening letter. (You'd think they'd know how to spell "unauthorized" - "unathorized" just doesn't quite do it for me.) Wikipedia shot back with an appropriate tongue-in-cheek response, here. Ya gotta take a look, it's pretty damn funny! (And look to your right - I wonder if I'm going to get a letter from them. Mind you, I think they objected to the high-res version, not this one. You can find that one here and... well, if you're good, you'll find it.)

As a PS, I found the following on an old update of the Wikipedia FBI page. I'm repeating it here, exactly as I found it, because it's illustrative of the kind of nutjobs Wikipedia has to deal with. I especially love the bit near the end about being forced to smoke cigaretttes and take huge prescriptions. This was posted at the very top of the FBI page. Here you go:
Hello, my name is Rhys Paul Hovey, and I have sent the FBI over 1000 e-mail tips, as well as hundreds to the CIA. I have never got any verbal response from the FBI or CIA, except one callback from the Canadian consulate. I have become a victim of high tech organized crime, that have satellite sound technology, and long range subvocal speech recognition to control "torture AI" or "head voice AI" and in effect attempt to put "voices in your head", and also to "advertise". There has been an artificial and quiet sound being put into my environment, including my house for over 5 years. I have been able to record the sound, this type of weapon or attack is going underneath the label of "mind control" technology. I am a computer scientist. Since this attack, I have received several understandable return codewords from the CIA as well as the FBI, including GORDV4,54004,G8CLUTL, and HQWW3G9. I believe that my personal data has become part of a TAG NETWORK, that has been created by undercover ops. This network appears to be about 9-11 and the hospital system, as well as totalitarianism, and STAR WARS. I have left further descriptions of this online, under the given keywords, and under SS TI TC TM. Several events, including the airplane crash in poland, and the Oklahoma city bombing, seem to be pretagged, dating back as early as 1984-1985. Please help me relay this information to the FBI. I have been shown by several doctors to have no mental illness, as mental illness is typical of 9-11 victims, who are forced to smoke cigarettes and take huge prescriptions, when indeed their mental illness is simple ultrasound-radio-waves, and computer controlled HEAD VOICE AI. Many people could die with this secret not in the open.
Fun stuff!!! But it gets better - as I was preparing this post, some fool deleted the entire article in Wikipedia, and replaced it with the following text (it was reverted back within a few seconds - the Wiki folks are really on top of things!):
We said remove it. We are the law. We are watching. Big brother is everywhere! We said remove it. We are the law. We are watching. Big brother is everywhere! We said remove it. We are the law. We are watching. Big brother is everywhere! We said remove it. We are the law. We are watching. Big brother is everywhere! We said remove it. We are the law. We are watching. Big brother is everywhere! We said remove it. We are the law. We are watching. Big brother is everywhere! We said remove it. We are the law. We are watching. Big brother is everywhere! We said remove it. We are the law. We are watching. Big brother is everywhere! We said remove it. We are the law. We are watching. Big brother is everywhere! We said remove it. We are the law. We are watching. Big brother is everywhere! We said remove it. We are the law. We are watching. Big brother is everywhere! We said remove it. We are the law. We are watching. Big brother is everywhere! We said remove it. We are the law. We are watching. Big brother is everywhere! We said remove it. We are the law. We are watching. Big brother is everywhere! We said remove it. We are the law. We are watching. Big brother is everywhere! We said remove it. We are the law. We are watching. Big brother is everywhere! We said remove it. We are the law. We are watching. Big brother is everywhere! We said remove it. We are the law. We are watching. Big brother is everywhere! We said remove it. We are the law. We are watching. Big brother is everywhere! We said remove it. We are the law. We are watching. Big brother is everywhere! We said remove it. We are the law. We are watching. Big brother is everywhere! We said remove it. We are the law. We are watching. Big brother is everywhere! We said remove it. We are the law. We are watching. Big brother is everywhere!
(They then proceed to repeat the above ¶ two more times! I'm not gonna waste the space here, though.)
Wikipedia vandals can be fun sometimes, albeit irritating. Apparently there were also repeated attempts to replace the FBI logo with a scratched-out version, but I was unable to find a  copy. It's probably time for Wikipedia to lock the ability to edit that article, at least for a while.

Ah, screw it - on the left we have the high-resolution version of the logo. Click on it to get a really good look! My theory is that, since this has been published all over the web, and is super-easy to find, it's pretty much in the public domain by now. In any case, it'll be kinda fun to get one of those letters - hopefully with the spelling error - from the FBI. I might even frame it! "Frame" - geddit?

Mambo Number 5

Hey, who remembers this one-hit wonder by someone called Lou Bega? I doubt they meant "liqueur-store" but what the hell ... I'm repeating it here exactly as I found it, typos and all!

Mambo No. 5

One, two, three four, five
everybody in the car so come on let's ride
To the liqueur-store around the corner,
the boys say they want some gin and juice
but I really don't wanna
beerbust like I had last week
I must stay deep 'cause talk is a cheap
I like Angela, Pamela, Sandra and Rita
and as I continue you know they're gettin' sweeter
so what can I do I really beg you my Lord
to me flirtin' it's just like a sport
anything fly it's all good let me dump it
and send in the trumpet

a little bit of Monica in my life
a little bit of Erica by my side
a little bit of Rita is all I need
a little bit of Tina is what I see
a little bit of Sandra in the sun
a little bit of Mary all night long
a little bit of Jessica here I am
a little bit of you makes me you're man

Mambo No. 5

jump up and down and move it all around
shake your head to the sound put your hands an the ground
take one step left and one step right
one to the front and one to the side
clap your hands once and clap your hands twice
and if it looks like this then you doin' it right

a little bit of Monica in my life
a little bit of Erica by my side
a little bit of Rita is all I need
a little bit of Tina is what I see
a little bit of Sandra in the sun
a little bit of Mary all night long
a little bit of Jessica here I am
a little bit of you makes me you're man

(Trumpet, the trumpet)
Mambo No. 5

a little bit of Monica in my life
a little bit of Erica by my side
a little bit of Rita is all I need
a little bit of Tina is what I see
a little bit of Sandra in the sun
a little bit of Mary all night long
a little bit of Jessica here I am
a little bit of you makes me you're man

I do all to fall in love with a girl like you
You can't run and you can't hide you and me gonna touch the sky

Mambo No. 5

Sunday, August 1, 2010

Golly gee whiz - Sarah is upset

Recently, an author, Joe McGinniss, moved next door to Sarah Palin's Wasilla home, intending to write a book about her "year of living dangerously." Seems she's not happy - I watched her pouty little face on Fucks (oops!) Fox News Sunday wailing about this. You can read the story here. A quote from it:
"We've changed our behavior as a result of our new neighbor," said Palin, considered a political superstar by many on the Republican right. "We just avoid certain angles in the house. And we avoid the front yard."
Poor baby. The Palins have also erected a 14' fence between the properties. The author, Joe (unfortunate name, makes me think of six-packs and "plumbers"!) McGinniss, will move out in October and publish his tell-all in autumn 2011. I can't wait.

You can watch the televised interview here, along with an interesting observation about her hypocrisy concerning her low poll numbers. (Shades of George W. Bush's attitude?)

With reference to the Arizona border law mess in the same interview, Palin claimed that Jan Brewer, the Republican Governor of Arizona, has the cojones that Obama lacks - well, I'm sure a transplant could be arranged! Speaking of our POTUS, the tweet twit (left) is, of course, a reference to Obama's recent appearance on the ABC morning talk show The View.