Gender politics revisited

Turns out that differences in pay for women versus men aren't just a matter of women failing to be assertive enough. It seems that women may be accurately anticipating the "she's a bitch" effect. :)

The horrifying depths of my procrastination

As if my plethora of blog posts weren't enough, I just, a few minutes ago, came _this_ close to registering the "www.nosheepies.org" domain name.

For the unenlightened, this is an Overlord reference. At some point I don't remember, one of the minion asks, very dejectedly and disappointed that there are no cute livestock available to massacre,

"No sheepies?"

This is rapidly becoming my catch-phrase for surprised disappointment.

...

Look, you just have to play the game to understand, ok?

When you like air travel a little too much

Please shoot me if I ever become this obsessed with flying.

Cheap Bible shot

I couldn't resist...

Clinton's boobs: the ironies abound

There are so many ironies here, I don't even know where to start...

Sigh. Okay, first, I read this article on how the Clinton campaign is getting its collective panties in a twist (sorry, I couldn't resist given the subject matter) over an article in the fashion section of the Washington Post. Seems a certain Ms. Robin Givhan (yes, _Ms._ Givhan) wrote an article on the implications of Clinton showing a bit of cleavage on the Senate floor, something she apparently hasn't really done before. Clinton's seems to think that this is part of a larger conspiracy by...the world, I guess?...to dismiss Clinton's ideas because she is a woman and, therefore, merely a sexual object.

Where do I start? I could start with the horrifying idea that we're all too busy lusting after Clinton to pay attention to her ideas. I have only one thing to say about that: *shudder*. But let's start with Givhan and her article. First of all, Givhan is herself a woman. And black. And did I mention she has won a Pulitzer Prize for her fashion commentary? Because she did. Last _fucking_ year. In fact, the Pulitzer was, "Awarded to Robin Givhan of The Washington Post for her witty, closely observed essays that transform fashion criticism into cultural criticism." So you can see why Clinton would assume that such a person talks about female politicians' boobs out of shallow, sophomoric titillation. (hee...I said "titillation"...)

So, pray tell, what was the point of Ms. Givhan's article? Well, read it yourself. Her point is, essentially, that Clinton's willingness to show a little skin is an indication that she is confident enough in her own authority, intellect, and presence to not be worried that a little air of sexuality will overshadow that. As Givhan writes,

"Showing cleavage is a request to be engaged in a particular way. It doesn't necessarily mean that a woman is asking to be objectified, but it does suggest a certain confidence and physical ease. It means that a woman is content being perceived as a sexual person in addition to being seen as someone who is intelligent, authoritative, witty and whatever else might define her personality. It also means that she feels that all those other characteristics are so apparent and undeniable, that they will not be overshadowed."

So, let's review: Clinton's reaction to an article praising her willingness to embrace her femininity at the same time that she commands authority and insists on being taken seriously because she isn't afraid that such a display will overshadow her ideas and her message was to, essentially, freak out and immediately assume that her ideas and her message were being ignored because everyone was suddenly focusing on her sexuality.

*brain explodes*

The more I learn about Clinton, the more I dislike her. It pains me to think that she'll probably get the Democratic nomination.

Emoticons: useful or abomination?

Little blurb in NYT fashion regarding the modern use of emoticons. Cute quote:

“I mean, it’s ludicrous,” said Ms. Feldman, 25. “I’m not going to feel better about losing hundreds of thousands of dollars because someone puts a frown face to regretfully inform me.”

Personally, I'm a staunch defender of their use. Emails can be wildly misinterpreted due to their lack of body language and tone. Emoticons are a very succinct way of making the intent of a message clear.

That said, I'm not entirely clear why the world needs a Ronald Reagan emoticon...

Pet peeve, anyone?

Sometimes Nick get angry!!!...

(bleeding heart liberal my ass...)

Also, the first comment had me laughing out loud. :)

Diary of a video store clerk

What it's like to deal with customers who regularly rent porn.

Kitty...of dooooooom!

...But the face of death is so furry and adorable!

Goddamn buttons

Did Steve Jobs endure a traumatic event involving buttons as a child?

UW web integrity checker

Hey! Go us.

Sometimes regulation = better competition

Turns out the United States is lagging badly behind many other industrialized nations in both percentage of people with broadband access and speed of broadband access. The problem? Telecoms having essentially a monopoly on wiring going into your house and thus having absolutely no motivation to improve their service, and an FCC that blabbers about the "free market" without having any fucking clue what they're talking about beyond a talking points memo from the Cato Institute...

*grumble*

*humbled*

Depressing events in one's life: when your biologist girlfriend comes up with a better solution to a problem you're working on than you did.

*sigh*

Fortunately, smart = sexy. ;)

Hyperbole

I mean, I'm no fan of Tom Cruise either, but...Goebbels? Really?

T-shirt hell

These baby shirts are priceless. Actually, the whole site is priceless.

Personally, because the "daddy drinks because I cry" is old, I'm going to have to go with the "They shake me!" and "Are you my daddy?"

:)

Ow.

I...I made the mistake of trying to watch some more of the Half Hour News Hour on Fox News.

Ow.

Ow ow ow ow.

Have you ever been around someone who's so stupid it physically hurt you?

Things my brain thinks to itself instead of doing useful work

"You know, if I believed in reincarnation, the inscription on my tombstone would _totally_ read, 'brb...'"

God's inbox

Have your computer tell you who to vote for

Unscientific, but amusing.

My results below. Of course, it asked my opinions and not the views I think an electable candidate could hold without committing political suicide. (btw, the topics listed under each person are the areas you disagree with the candidate about)

I'm curious what results my conservative friends get since almost all the questions are on social questions rather than economic ones. The only economic question I remember is regarding the minimum wage.

-----

Kucinich 82
No Child Left Behind, Border Fence

Gravel 71
(you have no disagreements with this candidate)

Clinton 60
Death Penalty, No Child Left Behind, Patriot Act, Border Fence, Iran Sanctions, Iran - Military Action, Same-Sex Marriage

Edwards 56
Death Penalty, No Child Left Behind, Patriot Act, Iran Sanctions, Iran - Military Action, Same-Sex Marriage

Obama 56
Patriot Act, Border Fence, Iran Sanctions, Same-Sex Marriage

Dodd 55
Death Penalty, No Child Left Behind, Patriot Act, Border Fence, Iran Sanctions, Iran - Military Action

Richardson 50
Death Penalty, Assault Weapons Ban, Patriot Act, Iran Sanctions, Iran - Military Action, Same-Sex Marriage

Biden 47
Death Penalty, No Child Left Behind, Patriot Act, Border Fence, Iran Sanctions, Same-Sex Marriage

Paul 3
Abortion Rights, Embryonic Stem Cells, ANWR Drilling, Kyoto, Assault Weapons Ban, Guns - Background Checks, Citizenship Path for Illegals, Border Fence, Net Neutrality, Minimum Wage Increase, Same-Sex Marriage, Universal Healthcare

McCain -15
Giuliani -24
Thompson -27
Brownback -44
Cox -47
Huckabee -60
Tancredo -72
Romney -79
Hunter -80

Spider-Pig

I'm sure everyone's seen this by now, but I would go to the Simpsons movie just for these 30 seconds if nothing else.

"Can he swing...from a web?...No, he can't...he's a pig..."