Friday, April 13, 2007

Question of the Day

Just in case there are some out there that don't know, it is the year 2007 after the birth of our Lord.

Now for the question: In this day and age, why is it that the worst possible thing you can do is mutter/yell/say a racial epitaph?

Think long and hard on this and answer in the comments. If you don't agree with the question, feel free to answer that way.

Reason to think

Thursday, April 12, 2007


Want to become an internet verb? Just follow along with this 'idea':

Original Text of Demand Letter Pg 1

Original Text of Demand Letter Pg 2

[Original on Letterhead from King & Ballow Law Offices]

Ms. Katherine Coble


Hermitage, Tennessee 37076

Re: Your Blog: “Just Another Pretty Farce”

February 27, 2007 posting regarding JL Kirk Associates (R)

Dear Ms. Coble:

This firm represents JL Kirk Associates. In the February 27, 2007, posting to your blog “Just Another Pretty Farce” you made the following false and defamatory statements about JL Kirk Associates: (link)

Read the rest of the post (and at various other places) and you'll see what I mean by becoming a verb.

Tuesday, April 10, 2007


Racism seems to be the big buzz word lately. I'm not really going to talk about the Imus episode (which, unless nappy-head is a new euphemism for black, wasn't racist; but certainly ho's was sexist).

I'm talking more 'institutional' racism here. ESPN's biggest crusade is about hiring practices (in all sports) and the minority roles thereof. Recently they also deplored the declining numbers of blacks playing baseball.

They gave a stat: 1970's the NFL roster was roughly 30% black, today it is 66% black. This particular minority makes up about 11% of the general population (lower than hispanics now I believe) but makes up 2/3 of the NFL rosters. Does ESPN have a crusade for this? Of course not. When asked, ESPN (and generally anyone that is on this crusade) will tell you that the numbers are that high because the best players get to play. Regardless of race. I totally agree, but why is it that the best players get to play, but the best coaches don't get to coach?

Granted, there are people (and will always be) that are racist and will not look at hiring a minority (in this case, black person; ESPN doesn't really harp about the other minorities much) and that is plain wrong. But if your team just fired it's coach and you KNOW the guy you want (proven winner, hall of famer, whatever) then why should you not hire that guy? If he's not someone that ESPN can talk good about and up it's 'minority hiring in the {sport}' numbers, should that really be a problem?

When looking at the playing side of sports, why is there no giant uproar on 'fair' lines of players? Why does no one get upset that 60% of all players in professional sports are not white? Because then they would be considered racists. If you then complain that only 3% of coaches, or 5% of owners (made up numbers) are minority (or black, according to who's complaining) then instead of being racist, you are pointing out racism in others.

As long as the media, and to a larger extent the people themselves, continue to put people into groups; or continue to define themselves as a part of a group, you will get this. In a system of government designed for 'majority-rule' but with safeguards for the minority (in any situation) you would think that we would be able to take people as ... well people.

The next time you hear of someone saying something bad about a group of people (regardless of the group) substitute these words in their sentence. White for color, male for sex, christian for religion and then ask yourself if the SAME sentence is racist. If you are honest with yourself, you'll probably say no. (If you are one of the few people that believe that people are people regardless of anything else, you'll say yes). Then ask yourself if that sentence would make news at all with the new words, or if the media would think it is racist. An honest answer is no.

The saddest state of this country today isn't racism, it isn't class difference and it isn't illegal immigration. The saddest thing today is that over half the people in this country spend most of everyday feeling offended about something that was not said 1) to them or 2) about them.

There are bad things said everyday. There will be bad things said everyday from now on. It's up to the people to start deciding that enough will finally be enough. When we decide to change things by teaching our kids what's right instead of showing them how to get your way by being a victim, then the country and perhaps later, the world, will start looking up.
Reason, not used apparently

Tuesday Night Video

{removed due to bug}

This was from an email from an unknown user (if it was you, tell me).

Monday, April 9, 2007

GCC (again)

I can't write much on this as I'm busy atm, but I'll leave a snippet and the link. This is especially for the climate porn people that come here (and James I'm not including you in that group, yet^^)
Why So Gloomy?
By Richard S. Lindzen
Newsweek International

April 16, 2007 issue - Judging from the media in recent months, the debate over global warming is now over. There has been a net warming of the earth over the last century and a half, and our greenhouse gas emissions are contributing at some level. Both of these statements are almost certainly true. What of it? Recently many people have said that the earth is facing a crisis requiring urgent action. This statement has nothing to do with science. There is no compelling evidence that the warming trend we've seen will amount to anything close to catastrophe. What most commentators—and many scientists—seem to miss is that the only thing we can say with certainly about climate is that it changes. The earth is always warming or cooling by as much as a few tenths of a degree a year; periods of constant average temperatures are rare. Looking back on the earth's climate history, it's apparent that there's no such thing as an optimal temperature—a climate at which everything is just right. The current alarm rests on the false assumption not only that we live in a perfect world, temperaturewise, but also that our warming forecasts for the year 2040 are somehow more reliable than the weatherman's forecast for next week.

A warmer climate could prove to be more beneficial than the one we have now. Much of the alarm over climate change is based on ignorance of what is normal for weather and climate. There is no evidence, for instance, that extreme weather events are increasing in any systematic way, according to scientists at the U.S. National Hurricane Center, the World Meteorological Organization and the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (which released the second part of this year's report earlier this month). Indeed, meteorological theory holds that, outside the tropics, weather in a warming world should be less variable, which might be a good thing.

In many other respects, the ill effects of warming are overblown. Sea levels, for example, have been increasing since the end of the last ice age. When you look at recent centuries in perspective, ignoring short-term fluctuations, the rate of sea-level rise has been relatively uniform (less than a couple of millimeters a year). There's even some evidence that the rate was higher in the first half of the twentieth century than in the second half. Overall, the risk of sea-level rise from global warming is less at almost any given location than that from other causes, such as tectonic motions of the earth's surface. (link)

Read the rest. This is a professor and scientist of Meteorology at MIT, so maybe he has a slight clue what he's talking about.