Michael Kindt's Blog, page 444
November 23, 2011
I am a fan of John Lennon in general and the Beatles in particular, but that ALL WE ARE SAYING IS GIVE PEACE A CHANCE SONG drives me TOTALLY fucking nuts.
ALL WE ARE SAYING THUMP WHUMP IS GIVE PEACE A CHANCE THUMP WHUMP ALL WE ARE SAYING THUMP WHUMP IS GIVE PEACE A CHANCE THUMP WHUMP ALL WE ARE SAYING THUMP WHUMP IS GIVE PEACE A CHANCE THUMP WHUMP ALL WE ARE SAYING THUMP WHUMP IS GIVE PEACE A CHANCE THUMP WHUMP ALL WE ARE SAYING THUMP WHUMP IS GIVE PEACE A CHANCE THUMP WHUMP ALL WE ARE SAYING THUMP WHUMP IS GIVE PEACE A CHANCE THUMP WHUMP ALL WE ARE SAYING THUMP WHUMP IS GIVE PEACE A CHANCE THUMP WHUMP ALL WE ARE SAYING THUMP WHUMP IS GIVE PEACE A CHANCE THUMP WHUMP ALL WE ARE SAYING THUMP WHUMP IS GIVE PEACE A CHANCE THUMP WHUMP ALL WE ARE SAYING THUMP WHUMP IS GIVE PEACE A CHANCE THUMP WHUMP ALL WE ARE SAYING THUMP WHUMP IS GIVE PEACE A CHANCE THUMP WHUMP ALL WE ARE SAYING THUMP WHUMP IS GIVE PEACE A CHANCE THUMP WHUMP ALL WE ARE SAYING THUMP WHUMP IS GIVE PEACE A CHANCE THUMP WHUMP ALL WE ARE SAYING THUMP WHUMP IS GIVE PEACE A CHANCE THUMP WHUMP ALL WE ARE SAYING THUMP WHUMP IS GIVE PEACE A CHANCE THUMP WHUMP ALL WE ARE SAYING THUMP WHUMP IS GIVE PEACE A CHANCE THUMP WHUMP ALL WE ARE SAYING THUMP WHUMP IS GIVE PEACE A CHANCE THUMP WHUMP ALL WE ARE SAYING THUMP WHUMP IS GIVE PEACE A CHANCE THUMP WHUMP ALL WE ARE SAYING THUMP WHUMP IS GIVE PEACE A CHANCE THUMP WHUMP ALL WE ARE SAYING THUMP WHUMP IS GIVE PEACE A CHANCE THUMP WHUMP ALL WE ARE SAYING THUMP WHUMP IS GIVE PEACE A CHANCE THUMP WHUMP ALL WE ARE SAYING THUMP WHUMP IS GIVE PEACE A CHANCE THUMP WHUMP ALL WE ARE SAYING THUMP WHUMP IS GIVE PEACE A CHANCE THUMP WHUMP ALL WE ARE SAYING THUMP WHUMP IS GIVE PEACE A CHANCE THUMP WHUMP ALL WE ARE SAYING THUMP WHUMP IS GIVE PEACE A CHANCE THUMP WHUMP ALL WE ARE SAYING THUMP WHUMP IS GIVE PEACE A CHANCE THUMP WHUMP ALL WE ARE SAYING THUMP WHUMP IS GIVE PEACE A CHANCE THUMP WHUMP ALL WE ARE SAYING THUMP WHUMP IS GIVE PEACE A CHANCE THUMP WHUMP ALL WE ARE SAYING THUMP WHUMP IS GIVE PEACE A CHANCE THUMP WHUMP ALL WE ARE SAYING THUMP WHUMP IS GIVE PEACE A CHANCE THUMP WHUMP ALL WE ARE SAYING THUMP WHUMP IS GIVE PEACE A CHANCE THUMP WHUMP ALL WE ARE SAYING THUMP WHUMP IS GIVE PEACE A CHANCE THUMP WHUMP
FOR 75 GODDAMN MINUTES
"This month, the Senate Judiciary Committee voted 10 to 8...
"This month, the Senate Judiciary Committee voted 10 to 8 to pass the "Respect for Marriage Act" (RFA). This law would repeal the "Defense of Marriage Act" (DOMA), which is, of course, discriminatory. In fact, it is the very definition of discriminatory. If you say one thing is better than another thing, that's discrimination. DOMA says heterosexual marriage is better than all other kinds of marriage. This is "defending" marriage, according to the marketing behind the name. The correct name should be DOCKMA (rhymes with dogma), the Discrimination of Certain Kinds of Marriage Act." READ MORE :: SHARE ON FACEBOOK
^^^New article on same-sex marriage, DOMA, and RFA. I see the regressives are already railing against it and it's only been up a couple minutes. Go kick their pink, fleshy asses! Hahahaha.
FUN WITH CUBES
You know them, you love them, you can't live without them. All Republican brains are shaped like cubes, except for Libertarian ones, which are shaped liked dice.
The cube has 6 faces, each made up of a square. A square by itself is not a cube, but it is the 2-dimensional world's analog of a cube. It is the closest thing to a cube the 2-dimensional people can muster.
The tesseract is the 4-dimensional world's cube. Well, actually, the cube is our analog of a tesseract. It's the best we can do. Our cube is made up of squares, but a tesseract is made up of cubes. Our cube, with its 6 square faces make up the tesseract, which has 8 faces, each one a cube.
Now try to visualize it…..Hard, ain't it? It's easier if you relax and get rid of the square walls of your mind. Also, reefer.
This is a picture of a shadow of a tesseract. The red face (which is a cube) is the nearest one, believe it or not. It is not a tesseract, nor even is it a shadow of one. Keep in mind that the tesseract is a 4-dimensional object and as such would cast a 3-dimensional shadow. In fact, all tesseracts are casting shadows at this very moment. They're called cubes.
Don't feel bad. A 2-dimensional person can't even imagine a cube. All it can grasp is the square, because that's the only part of the cube that juts into its reality. You are just like the 2-dimensional person, only one notch up.
Everything you see is just part of the story.
November 22, 2011
My dentist is a part of a family of dentists, a whole clan.
In the waiting room, you can see all their pictures on the wall. There's like a dozen of them, all with the same last name: Dana. The business is called Dana Dental Arts. There are fathers and uncles and cousins and spouses, all dentists, all smiling from their pictures with pristine, snow-white teeth.
As I sit there waiting for pain next to the stack of out-of-date magazines, a scenario involving their family begins playing out in my mind. It has to do with the one member didn't want to be a dentist. In my mind, I call him Tommy and he likes to rock.
At 4, Tommy taught himself to play drums with pots and pans and wooden spoons. His mom (who was a dentist like his father) chuckled. At 8, a relative (also a dentist) broke down and got him a cheap guitar for Christmas after repeated pleadings. Everyone thought it was cute. By 12, however, Tommy was a talented and versatile musician, purely through his own efforts. He knew what he wanted to do with his life. On his 13th birthday, Tommy announced to his family that he didn't want to be a dentist. He told them he wanted to rock instead.
The following morning, he was put up for adoption.
x=y, y=x
"THE most difficult thing is to know what we do know, and what we do not know.
Therefore, desiring to know anything, we shall before all else determine WHAT we accept as given, and WHAT as demanding definition and proof; that is, determine WHAT we know already, and WHAT we wish to know.
In relation to the knowledge of the world and of ourselves, the conditions would be ideal could we venture to accept nothing as given, and count all as demanding definition and proof. In other words, it would be best to assume that we know nothing, and make this our point of departure.
But unfortunately such conditions are impossible to create. Knowledge must start from some foundation, something must be recognized as known; otherwise we shall be obliged always to define one unknown by means of another.
Looking at the matter from another point of view, we shall hesitate to accept as the known things—as the given ones—those in the main completely unknown, only presupposed, and therefore the things sought for. Should we do this, we are likely to fall into such a dilemma as that in which positive philosophy now finds itself—and by positive philosophy I mean a general trend of thought based on the data of those sciences which are now accepted as experimental and positive. This philosophy is founded on the existence of matter (materialism) or energy: that is, of a force, or motion, (energeticism); though in reality matter and motion were always the unknown x and y, and were defined by means of one another.
It must be perfectly clear to everyone that it is impossible to accept the thing sought as the given; and impossible to define one unknown by means of another. The result is nothing but the identity of the unknown: x=y, y=x.
This identity of the unknown is the ultimate conclusion to which positive philosophy comes.
Matter is that in which proceed the changes called motion: and motions are those changes which proceed in matter."
~P.D. Ouspensky
Should We Defend or Respect Marriage?This month, the Senate...
Should We Defend or Respect Marriage?
This month, the Senate Judiciary Committee voted 10 to 8 to pass the "Respect for Marriage Act" (RFA). This law would repeal the "Defense of Marriage Act" (DOMA), which is, of course, discriminatory. In fact, it is the very definition of discriminatory. If you say one thing is better than another thing, that's discrimination. DOMA says heterosexual marriage is better than all other kinds of marriage. This is "defending" marriage, according to the marketing behind the name. The correct name should be DOCKMA (rhymes with dogma), the Discrimination of Certain Kinds of Marriage Act.
From the Senate Judiciary, the RFA would go to the full Senate, where it would be filibustered by regressive-thinking Republicans. Even if somehow it managed to get out of the Senate, it would most likely fail in the House, which will be dominated by still more regressive-thinking Republicans up till the election of 2012, when a lot of them will be going away.
Mark my words.
It doesn't really matter, though, since society itself and the ordinary people who make it up have already moved passed this debate and have come down on the side of "respecting" marriage rather than "defending" it. Politicians, you see, don't represent the people, but the special interests and money that got them elected.
Public acceptance of same-sex marriage has grown at an accelerated pace, with approval jumping by nine percentage points in the past two years alone. This year, for the first time in Gallup's tracking of the issue, a majority of Americans (53%) believe same-sex marriage should be recognized by the law as valid, with the same rights as traditional marriages. Among young people, support is far and wide, with 70% of people 18-34 supporting same-sex marriage.
It is clear that while the suits sit around debating the definition of marriage with their respective special interests breathing down their necks, the rest of us have already decided and moved forward.
What's there to debate? we wonder.
It's not likely the RFA will go any further, at least not until after the coming election that reduces the number of regressives in Congress, but, as I said, it doesn't really matter. The Obama administration has stopped defending DOMA in court, which basically means it isn't even enforced.
Backward laws still on the books are nothing new in this country. Oral sex, for example, is still illegal in 17 states, but is not enforced. Can you imagine if it were, though? Man, that would really suck.
source :: share on Facebook
mayra-quijotesca:
ladyofinsanity:
intelligentsia-in-flames:
M...
MUST SEE VIDEO: I am reposting this short (8 min) for the third time because it beautifully contrasts the formal U.S. response to protecting freedom of speech and right to assembly abroad, while remaining silent on the police brutality against students here in the United States.
It is noteworthy that the violence shown in this video - images that were shocking when they first came out 6 weeks ago - have since been eclipsed by the images of escalating violence by U.S. police against the protesters in the past few weeks: the fractured skull of Iraq War vet Scott Olsen, the pepper-spraying of 84 year old Dorli Rainey and the UC Davis students, and the NYPD's running over protesters with motorcycles and beating them with batons.
This is what a police state looks like.
President Obama and Secretary of State Clinton, where are you?
UNITED STATES OF HYPOCRISY
Hypocrisy has its own elegant symmetry.
This needs more notes.
Reblogging again/adding requisite tags.
thetessellations replied to your post: Just wrote an intelligent, well thought out article on...
i want to be you when i grow up
I'm actually selling Be Like Mike Kits which can make this happen for you. Each kit comes with
Big Black Boots & Requisite Red Laces
Razors & Shaving Cream for Trademark Baldness
Cadre of Babes
Halo of Awesomeness
Six-Pack of Beer
Get it now!
