Finally - I get to criticize the left

As my regular readers know, I try to keep this blog as balanced as I can, but with all the idiocy demonstrated by the right wing these days, I'm hard-pressed to find anything that could point out weakness on the left.

Even this story is not the best example, because it really is more about how silly political correctness has become; but since being PC has been co-opted by the left ... well, there you go. It's also not directly related to the current political nonsense, but in that case the Republicans truly have the edge on stupid - no contest there!

TV commentator Juan Williams, who worked for NPR as well as Faux Fox News, apparently made a boo-boo on Faux [damn, I keep doing that, dunno why] Fox the other day. He mentioned that he has a visceral reaction when he sees Muslims, dressed in traditional garb, at an airport gate, about to board the same plane as he is. He said the reaction is one of nervousness, and passes as quickly as it comes. Later in the segment, he made the point this is not because of any problem he has with Muslims, it's merely one of those gut reactions that we all have at certain moments in our lives.

Well, this got his superiors over at NPR in a froth - and they booted his ass. Talk about making a fuss over nothing! To make matters worse, one of their spokespeople (!), in an interview yesterday, said that this sort of posturing has no place on public TV (even though he said it on Faux Fox, not NPR), and that he should be taking this matter up with his "psychiatrist or publicist, take your pick." (NPR has subsequently apologized for this slip.)

Tempest in a teapot? Fersure. Of course, this is now a major story, hardly a surprise in the U.S., and - again of course - the right is making hay out of it. Faux Fox News is chortling, and leading every hour so far today with this story, spending a large, disproportionate amount of time on it.

Not only that, but now Senator Jim DeMint (R-South Carolina) is proposing a bill that would remove the vestiges of public funding that NPR gets. A whole 2% of their budget - shock, horror! But, again, this is all part of their glee over the fact that those damn liberal, politically correct lefties made a boo-boo.

The only reason this is a story is because it isn't. I never cease to be amazed at the very low level of discourse that passes for news in this country.

There has to be a backstory here: My guess is that NPR has been unhappy with Williams' affiliation with Faux Fox News for some time, and that they (prematurely?) leapt on this to get rid of him. But, NPR is the one that ended up with egg on its face. Score one for Juan - especially now that Faux Fox has given him a new $2 million contract!!!

Link colors - admin note

Cool fractal, huh?

A quick bit of administrivia: I've changed the link and the visited-link colors to more pleasing shades of blue. The hover color remains red.

My usual request: If this is a problem on your monitor, please let me know - it's hard to judge without feedback! Thanks. (There are lots of other color changes, but it's the links I'm concerned about because those are the ones that you, dear reader, need to see to be able to click 'em.)

In all fairness to Christine...

OK, so there's been an argument about exactly what Christine O'Donnell meant with her self-inflicted flub about separation of church and state, and its presence (or lack thereof) in the Constitution. (My earlier post.)

Here's the thing: She is trying to downplay this, by saying that she (originally) said the specific phrase "separation of church and state" does not appear. This is true, but c'mon - why on earth would someone even bother to ask about how an idea is exactly worded when the real issue is its significance? Clearly, she is trying to shift the focus.

Trying to be fair, I have done some research, and it is apparent that Christine and her attendants are busy exercising damage control. Here, from Slate, is a good, objective explanation of what went down. Take a look for yourself, and make your own decision.

It's like shooting fish in a barrel

Christine O'Donnell and her minions apparently have trouble spelling her name. As I write this, the error is still on her website, despite the comments from a number of people online! UPDATE: They finally fixed it!

They make it so easy - who could resist pointing this gaffe out? Not I, certainly!

And to those of you who say "who cares?" I say I do. When an error like this is allowed to be published, it tells me that they truly have a don't-care-just-send-money attitude. And the really sad part is that her followers probably are incapable of picking up on this.

How the Teabaggers get it wrong

I came across this thoughtful, well-written, objective essay in Newsweek, discussing how the Teabaggers use the Constitution as their "bible" to get their message across, and how incredibly misguided and just plain wrong this notion is. Yet another must-read.

I also feel compelled to show you this sign from them - what the hell do they think Medicare is?!

(I'm finding so many "must-reads" these days, where the articles in question speak for themselves and really need no comment from me. Consequently, I'm now adding a box in the sidebar which will change as necessary, and will contain links that I think are important.)

Quickies

Some good items in the Huffington Post today - worth linking to. Here goes:

• Carl Paladino fell apart in a gubernatorial debate with Andrew Cuomo.
• There's a dustup between Sarah Palin and NYTimes columnist Maureen Dowd.
• Larry Magid talks about how Facebook Groups can jeopardize privacy.
• And, on DADT, it appears that the judge is likely to defy the government.

Christine at her best

I'm uncomfortably aware that I keep zeroing in (see here) on Christine O'Donnell's scary nonsense, but who can resist? Not her fellow Republicans, it seems! Or even herself...

Today, in an exchange with her opponent Chris Coons during a radio debate, it became apparent that dear Christine has no clue about the separation of church and state, which is very clearly stated in the First Amendment. Politico tells us that this was a true foot-in-mouth moment, given that she was the one who brought it up by asking "Where in the Constitution is the separation of church and state?" When informed of the text of the First Amendment, her initial response was "You’re telling me the First Amendment does?" She then repeated this with "That's in the First Amendment?" Oh dear. In addition, we now learn that Sharron Angle is with Christine on this issue - surprise.

UPDATE: Here's Christine's, um, rebuttal to this brouhaha on her website: "In this morning's WDEL debate, Christine O'Donnell was not questioning the concept of separation of church and state as subsequently established by the courts. She simply made the point that the phrase appears nowhere in the Constitution. It was in fact Chris Coons who demonstrated his ignorance of our country's founding documents when he could not name the five freedoms contained in the First Amendment." I honestly cannot see how she squares this with her original question (see above). Talk about stretching the truth!

Witchy woman!

Her fellow Republican, Newt Gingrich, criticized her yesterday for her now-infamous "I am not a witch, I'm you" ad. There's this irresistible quote from Christine: "One of my first dates with a witch was on a satanic altar and I didn't know it. I mean, there was a little blood there and stuff like that... We went to a movie and then had a little picnic on a satanic altar."

And on Sunday's This Week on ABC, Meghan McCain - John McCain's daughter - commented that she thought Christine is a "nutjob." Daddy is not happy.

Redesigned again!

The old look

Yup, I've done it again - a new look for Bafflegab! I've tried to retain the best of what I had, but given it cleaner lines and (I hope) a friendlier look for normal as well as widescreen monitors.

No doubt I'll be tweaking it for a few days, but most of it is there. Like it? Hate it? Let me know via comments below or clicking one of the response boxes.

Facebook does it again

Yet again, Facebook is in the news. It has come to light that, regardless of how stringently you set your so-called "privacy" settings in Facebook, there are a number of associated apps that ignore this, and divulge personally identifiable information about you to their "trusted partners." What's worse, not only about you, but also information about your Facebook "friends." One of these apps, Farmville, has almost 60 million users (yes, 60,000,000!), and it seems they are one of the worst offenders.

Here's what happens: Every user of Facebook has a unique ID. Anyone, you included, can look up an individual's profile using this ID, thus divulging (at least) the name, along with anything else the person may have chosen to include. Apps like Farmville use this ID - as well as those of your "friends" - to pass this info on to data mining companies. So, even if you, personally, have chosen not to get involved, there is a high likelihood that your "friends" have - and thus your personal info is being passed on! Nice, huh?

Now, I've written about Facebook a number of times (see here, here, and here), so none of this comes as a surprise to me. But I am amazed at the continued explosive growth of the site, given all the negative publicity they have been receiving; either people don't read or they're just incredibly stupid.

The Huffington Post had this to say about it, along with some informative links that you should look at (particularly the three things you can do on Facebook to help protect your privacy - not that it seems to have much effect!).

As I was looking into this story, I discovered a great website, SUSPACK. There is an excellent essay about Facebook, focusing on the good, the bad, and the ugly. If you only click through to one item, this is the one!

And, if you still feel a desperate urge to use a social networking service, take a look at these alternatives.

Of course, with the speed of change in this world, who knows how long it will be before the next phenomenon comes along that will overshadow Facebook ... only time will tell.

There's gotta be a morning after!

The Turf Club certainly got lucky with the weather. Saturday night was beautiful - typical Bay Area weather. Sunday saw our first real rain of the season - here's what the patio looked like then!

Pictures of Turf Club's 25th anniversary

As I mentioned in my prior post, yesterday was the Turf Club's 25th anniversary, and a blast was had by all. I snapped some pictures, but not nearly enough to do justice to the event. Nonetheless, here's a sampling.

Great hors d'œuvre and amuse bouche got us going, prepared and served by Steve D'Assis. Then we were served a dinner of juicy, tender prime rib, new potatoes slathered in butter, and a delicious marinated bean side (a nod to my need for veg!). I wasn't able to manage dessert, but was reliably informed that the selection was, again, delicious. And, of course, champagne. All the staff were parading around in tuxes (or some variant thereof), all looking wonderful. A big thank you goes out, in kinda-sorta alphabetical order, to Larry, Doug, Danny, Dave, Eric, Frank, Gary, Hazel, Jay, Jennifer, Michael, Randy, Shawn, both Steves, and others I'm just not remembering right now (apologies)!

Some people pics first, then some more general pics.

My friend Bryan and bartender Shawn

Bartender Jennifer

My friend Carrie (aka Dinklesquat!!!)

Doug - da mob boss!
(And, of course, the ever-present whiskey sour in Bryan's hand!)

Bartender and good friend Dave

My friend John, who owes me a drink!
(Bet he can't remember why...)

Dave, suitably attired!

And some more general views of the party:

Turf Club's 25th anniversary

Today marks the 25th anniversary of my "home away from home," the World Famous Turf Club. It's in downtown Hayward, CA, and is the only "gay bar" left in town. I use the term "gay bar" in quotes because, while people use the term familiarly, that really isn't the main focus these days - and that's as it should be. I'm always fascinated by the dichotomy of gay people wanting to be in the mainstream, yet when it comes to revered institutions like "their" bars, then they want exactly the opposite: a sense of exclusivity. C'mon, guys - it's one or the other, otherwise you're just being hypocritical.

The Turf is a wonderfully supportive community of like-minded people - gay, straight, ambisexual, whatever, who cares. LGBTQQWTF! From charity events to just plain having fun, you can find it all here. So, if you ever wander off the beaten path into Hayward, give it a whirl. (Tonight promises to be a blast because of the celebration - they're going all out to make this a night to remember.)

I could point out all of its attributes, but ya gotta see it for yourself to really appreciate it. The huge patio is being upgraded, and they are about to install a permanent outdoor bar on the top deck, in the Tiki Hut. This nighttime picture of the bottom section is a few months old, but it gives you some idea of the atmosphere. (And no, I'm not a shill for the place ... I just happen to really like it!)

FYI: Updated pictures page

I've added some new pics to my Picture me page ... hope you like 'em!

Christine O'Donnell - another Sarah Palin?

During the recent debate between senatorial candidates in Delaware, our new Republican idiot, Christine O'Donnell, displayed an appalling ignorance of Supreme Court cases. This is astonishing; you would think that she at least had done enough homework to answer a question that had a high likelihood of being asked, particularly since she has been so critical of so-called "activist judges" and has expressed unhappiness about the recent California Supreme Court decision on DADT.

I'll let the transcript speak for itself:
--------------------------------
Nancy Karibjanian: What opinions, of late, that have come from our high court, do you most object to?

O'Donnell: Oh, gosh. Um, give me a specific one. I'm sorry.

Karibjanian: Actually, I can't, because I need you to tell me which ones you object to.

O'Donnell: Um, I'm very sorry, right off the top of my head, I know that there are a lot, but I'll put it up on my website, I promise you.

Wolf Blitzer: We know that you disagree with Roe v Wade.

O'Donnell: Yeah, but she said a recent one.

Blitzer: That's relatively recent.

O'Donnell: She said "of late." But yeah. Well, Roe v Wade would not put the power - it's not recent, it's 30-something years old...

Blitzer: But since then, have there been any other Supreme Court decisions?

O'Donnell: Well, let me say about Roe v Wade - if that were overturned, would not make abortion illegal in the United States, it would put the power back to the states.

Blitzer: But besides that decision, anything else you disagree with?

O'Donnell: Oh, there are several when it comes to pornography, when it comes to court decisions - not to Supreme Court, but federal court decisions to give terrorists Mirandize rights. There are a lot of things I believe - this California decision to overturn Don't Ask, Don't Tell. I believe there are a lot of federal judges legislating from the bench.

Blitzer: That wasn't the Supreme Court. That was a lower...

O'Donnell: That was a federal judge. That's what I said. In California.
--------------------------------
While she promised to update us on this issue on her websites, thus far I have not been able to find anything, either here or here.
UPDATE: While Christine has not personally responded (as she promised), this post is, I guess, the closest we'll get. It is, of course, nothing but pure bafflegab from one of her minions, wherein she has apparently changed her mind, now saying that she is OK with "recent" Supreme Court decisions. She attributes this change of heart to the fact that Roberts and Alito are now Supremes, conveniently ignoring the fact that they joined the court in 2005 and 2006, respectively. Newsflash for Christine: This is 2010. Not only that, but since she acknowledged that Roe v Wade is "30-something years old," you would think that she could name at least one case she has a problem with during the intervening 25-"something" years!
UPDATE AGAIN: Bill Maher, on his show this week, mentioned this, and commented that it's easy to promise an update on the website, and then do some creative copy-paste from Wikipedia. How true. How sad.

It's also illuminating to read her political viewpoints, not to mention her personal ones! Let's see. Masturbation: bad. Witchcraft: good. Evolution: bad! There's lots more. The Huffington Post always has some interesting comments. Or just Google her (no thanks!).

So there you have it. Just like the time when Katie Couric asked Sarah Palin (Christine's, erm, mentor) to name a recent Supreme Court case (besides Roe v Wade), and was not able to. Oh dear. Of course, this was yet another reason for Christine to have done her homework - if sister Sarah was tripped up, she really should have anticipated this question!

Battle to dominate your living room

It seems that marriage of TV and the 'net is becoming more a reality as each day goes by. If executed well, this could be an exciting innovation. Or, it could be a dud - after all, hooking one's 'puter to a TV is somewhat passé already, even though it does require at least a smidgen of technical knowledge. But if it really, honestly, absolutely, becomes "plug 'n play" (to resurrect an old term), then I think we may be on to something revolutionary. I've always dreamed of the potential of truly interactive TV, but there's no question it has to be as seamless as possible - almost like what the iPhone/iPad/iWhatever did to get phones and 'puters to wed.

Needless to say, Google (surprise!) is one of two major contenders in this arena, the other being Apple. It will be interesting to see who prevails - if at all! Time, as always, will tell.

Wind power - and this time, I'm not farting!

Here's an exciting prospect - an offshore wind farm on the Atlantic seaboard that would generate ~6Gw of power. That's equivalent to about five large nuclear power plants, and the windmills would be located in the ocean, away from populated areas. Even better, Google is one of two major investors!

This all sounds very promising. While expensive to deploy, the benefits, of course, accrue over time. I think this is exciting, and could well be the harbinger of things to come.

And, just for grins, on the left we have a picture of an old windmill on a farm in South Africa - I like it for nostalgic reasons, so why the hell not? (These were typically used to pump water from underground wells.)

This space intentionally left blank! (But is it? Really?!)

TV tech terminology

I've always wondered why the TV industry insists on confusing us with their bafflegabby (!) terminology. Take, for example, the popular "1080p" resolution. This is typically described as a mode characterized by "1080 lines of vertical resolution." (Emphasis mine.) Now, I dunno about you, but this leads me to think that each line is 1080 pixels high - iow, from top to bottom. That's what "vertical" means, n'est-ce pas? Nope, 1080p is the number of horizontal lines, stacked on top of each other. (The width of each line is 1920 pixels.) And, yes, I know it means that each line is, in fact, 1080 pixels high - but it still confuses the crap outta me!

In checking this out, I came across a rather illuminating, easy-to-understand depiction of all the different video resolutions out there. It's interesting to see how far we've come from the early days, and where we may be headed. I say that with reservations, because I think we've pretty much hit the point of diminishing returns. After all, why pump all those extra pixels down the line, eating up precious bandwidth, when the human eye really cannot discern much more than the current standard? Here's the pic in question; you can find a larger, easier-to-see version here. (Realize that HD 1080 is 3,801,600 pixels 30 times a second, while the highest resolution, QSXGA would be 5,242,880 pixels, 1.38x more!)

Nice billboard

This ad is from the South African electricity utility, Eskom:

Admin note

In an attempt to speed up loading of this page (in response to, um, complaints!), I am now limiting the number of posts to 15. Of course, you can always click on the "older posts" link at the bottom of each page to continue trolling through my bafflegab!

The store not in motion

OK, yes, stationary/stationery misspellings are a common problem, but sometimes it's contextually funny. This, from a story at NDTV.com:

"The boy was returning home from a stationary store, when the man took him to a nearby isolated ground and tortured him for more than two hours."

(Before I get nasty comments: Yes, the story itself is not funny.)

Fun bathroom pictures

All the political nonsense going on right now is getting me down. So, back to bathroom humor... (Not to worry, most of it is clean!)

Gotta love the detail,
down to the direction of the drips -
as well as that of the baseball caps!

Talk about ropey!

That hair! Is she in a wind tunnel?
(Btw, is that really how women pee? Damn.)

Gotta go?
See below...

Gotta go! Gotta go!
Gotta go right now.

This is disturbing...

...but not as disturbing as this!
(And there are those baseball caps again.)

Umm ... OK.

But it is a non sequitur!

I'm sure there'll be more of these appearing soon, so stay tuned!

The tea party and its (unspoken) racism

Here's an article that I would regard as a must-read for anyone who is concerned about the future of this country. It's objective, well-researched, and most definitely speaks for itself - so I'm going to let it do just that!

Political silly season

With the mid-term elections coming up in a few weeks, the loonies are most definitely out there, making - as usual - complete idiots of themselves. Let's start the season with a "light" one:

House representative Larry Brown (R-NC) appears to not be too enamored with gay people. In an email string (for context see here), he said, and I quote: "I hope all the queers are thrilled to see him. I'm sure there will be a couple of legislative fruitloops there in the audience."

Queers. Fruitloops. Hmm.

Now, clearly, this doesn't rise to the level of anything extraordinary - after all, by now we all should be accustomed to seeing this sort of garbage. It just blows me away that there still are politicians up on the hill, supposedly representing us, "the people," who maintain this kind of outdated, ill-informed bigotry. And, sadly (and more importantly), this fool is running unopposed in November.

(Thanks, John, for alerting me to this one!)

Oh hell, I give up

Instead of constantly apologizing for my puerile fascination with naughty bits, why don't I just 'fess up now: Like most men, I am still in a state of arrested adolescence, and find stuff like the following pretty damn funny. Enjoy.

OK, I know...

I haven't exactly been prolific with my writing the past few days - I'm a little, erm, preoccupied at the moment...

But at least I'm updating the funny stuff above and on the left ... that's something! So quitcha bitchin'!