Monday, February 27, 2006
I was playing a game on pogo and I was chatting in the window to the right. Here's a close up:
What I had typed, that got edited over, was "playing on a different". As you can see I then asked why it got edited. No one ever answered me, but I finally figured it out. Apparently it will edit out the word "gonad". Notice that it is the "g" from playing, then "on a" and the "d" from different. I just thought that was too funny. I guess you have to be really careful what you type. You never know when you might be accidentally offensive.
Sunday, February 26, 2006
Wednesday, February 22, 2006
I'm a Talent!
You're a risk-taker, and you follow your passions. You're determined to take on the world and succeed on your own terms. Whether in the arts, science, engineering, business, or politics, you fearlessly express your own vision of the world. You're not afraid of a fight, and you're not afraid to bet your future on your own abilities. If you find a job boring or stifling, you're already preparing your resume. You believe in doing what you love, and you're not willing to settle for an ordinary life.
Talent: 48%Take the Talent, Lifer, or Mandarin quiz.
I really felt like they should have used a Likert scale instead of a simple dichotomy on many of those questions. But I guess risk taker fits me well enough. "You're not willing to settle for an ordinary life" might be pushing it a little far though.
h/t: Mandarin Dr. Stephen Taylor
Monday, February 20, 2006
Your Normalcy Quotient is: 69 out of 100.
Your quiz results make you a Quirky Character
You've found yourself mostly in the middle of the road, but you have enough quirky habits to not be entirely normal. You're probably glad to be more than ordinary, but you're normal enough to fit in. Sounds like a perfect balance.
Take this free personality test by Clicking Here.
The test is a little annoying and they e-mail you the results, but I took it so I thought I'd share. But we already knew I was quirky, didn't we.
Sunday, February 19, 2006
I saw this headline "Biden: I won't be taken alive" and was completely confused. I asked myself, "Has Senator Biden lost his mind and taken hostages somewhere?" No, of course not. It was actually a link to story about Osama bin Laden. MSN had just made a typo. It should have read "Bin Laden" not "Biden". I just had to share it before they realize their mistake and fix it. I certainly hope they realize their mistake and fix it.
Thursday, February 16, 2006
In a response included at the end of the report, the U.S. ambassador to the U.N. offices in Geneva said investigators had taken little account of evidence against the abuse allegations provided by the United States and rejected an invitation to visit Guantanamo.
“It is particularly unfortunate that the special rapporteurs rejected the invitation and that their unedited report does not reflect the direct, personal knowledge that this visit would have provided,” ambassador Kevin Moley wrote.
However this argument seems a bit lame when one considers
The five U.N. experts had sought invitations from the United States to visit Guantanamo since 2002. Three were invited last year, but refused to go in November after being told they could not interview detainees.What good is a trip to visit if they are not going to be allowed to do what they need to do. It seems obvious that there are things going on down there that we want to hide. If another country behaved the way the US does, there is no way we would stand for it. Just ask Saddam. The US attitude seems to be "Do what the UN says or else, but don't expect us to do what the UN says." Unfortunately, we have the international power to get away with it. But it really only serves to continue to erode our image overseas.
When one considers the Gramscian definition of hegemony (leading by ideas and legitimacy), I fear American hegemony is waning. Once we move completely into the realist notion of hegemony (leading by might and force), I hate to think what will happen.
Wednesday, February 15, 2006
Moore said Tuesday that the newsletter and Cavanaugh's previous employment with Riley, combined with the party's recent flirtation with prohibiting Democratic primary voters from voting in a Republican primary runoff, are enough to establish a pattern of unfairness.
In the event of a runoff, conventional wisdom holds that crossover votes would benefit Moore, who refused to take his Ten Commandments monument from the Alabama Judicial Building and subsequently was removed as chief justice.
seems somewhat weak. It might be true that conventional says crossover voting would help Moore, but all the talk I've heard about Democrats crossing over to vote in the Republic primary was aimed at voting AGAINST Moore.
However, if he's already in persecution mode, maybe that means he already knows his campaign is in trouble.