Category: Uncategorized

I’m having serious technical difficulties with the aforementioned game, namely, the screen goes to garbage as soon as it goes into the battle screen. The effect even continues after I quit out of the game, leaving Windows completely illegible until I restart. I’ve downloaded the latest DirectX as well as ATI’s current Catalyst drivers for the Radeon 9700 Mobility in my laptop.

Anyone run into this one before? What’s annoying is that TW:Medieval is screwing up too now, which it was not doing before.

Zuzu at Feministe cries crocodile tears:

Horrifying
Filed under: Blogging, Crime, Stupidity, Crazy Conservatives — zuzu @ 11:28 am

Recently, J*ff “Online Integrity” G*ldstein allowed a comment which outed Thersites and NYMary to remain on his site for some time, publishing personal information about their identities and workplaces, apparently because Thersities snarked at Online Integrity’s misattribution of a rather famous piece of artwork. Prior to that, Michelle Malkin published personal contact information for some UC Santa Cruz students who’d mistakenly included it in a press release that she’d gotten her hands on — and she refused to take down the information, even after the students asked her to, because they had started getting threatening calls from Malkin’s flying monkeys. She then found herself having to move because someone retaliated by publishing *her* home address and telephone.

Now another wingnut has published the personal contact information for someone who has displeased him. The crime? Taking a photo assignment for the New York Times’ Travel section on St. Michael’s, an exclusive community on the eastern shore of Maryland where Donald Rumsfeld and Dick Cheney have well-known, heavily-guarded vacation homes.

I note that Zuzu doesn’t mention The Poor Man Institute, Electrolite, ConWebWatch, Dispatches From the Culture Wars, Bartholomew’s Notes on Religion, World O’Crap, Max Blumenthal, Blog of the Moderate Left or Brent Rasmussen, all of whom have enthusiastically published personal information about me because they do not agree with my opinions. This is not an empty accusation, you can easily confirm the veracity of it on Google. And while Zuzu is surely innocent of performing any such attempted outings herself – which in my case is particularly stupid anyhow as informed readers well know – this attempt to label such a tactic a particularly conservative craziness is in direct contradiction to the easily verifiable facts.

It will be interesting to see if Feministe’s readers will judge these left-wing blogs to be equally “horrifying” and “cowardly” as the “bedwetting Brownshirts of the Information Age” they decry for “using the implcit threat of violence to silence people”.

I had an espresso in Rome the other day that transformed my approach to my daily coffee. The bar happened to have little packets of honey as well as the usual sugar and insecticide, so I decided to give Pooh Bear’s favorite delicacy a whirl. The result was buonissimo despite the mediocre quality of the espresso itself, so I decided to experiment a little on the home front upon my return. I found this yields the ultimate result:

1 Nespresso machine
1 capsule ristretto. That’s the black caps intended only for the serious espresso drinker.
1 cup whole milk
1 teaspoon spun Canadian honey

And here everyone thought I was kidding when I said I was down with Mr. Clooney.

C’e veramente una vita bella

The Washington Times apparently considers this to be news of the Nation/Politics variety:

Labeling a child obese might “run the risk of making them angry, making the family angry,” but it addresses a serious issue head-on, said Dr. Reginald Washington, a Denver pediatrician and co-chairman of an American Academy of Pediatrics obesity task force. “If that same person came into your office and had cancer, or was anemic, or had an ear infection, would we be having the same conversation? There are a thousand reasons why this obesity epidemic is so out of control, and one of them is no one wants to talk about it.”

The diplomatic approach adopted by the federal Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) and used by many doctors avoids the word “obese” because of the stigma. The CDC also calls overweight children “at risk of overweight.”

Personally, I’d find it difficult not to tell the fat little freaks to stop worrying about their self-esteem and stop stuffing their fat little faces before they contract diabetes, but then, I’m reliably informed that I am somewhat insensitive on the issue.

The annoying thing about the fat brigade, junior division is the way in which many of their parents simply refuse to accept responsibility for their children’s excessive weight. It’s reprehensible.

Losing weight isn’t any fun. It’s not supposed to be. Nearly everyone has had to do it at one point or another, but the equation is pretty simple. Unless you burn off more energy than you take in, you won’t lose weight. I wish I could still eat like a stoned pig, drink 14 beers and not gain an ounce, but I’m not 21 anymore so I don’t. The trick is to recognize where your limits are and stick to them.

I know most of the big and beautiful understand this on some level, but then, it’s hard to forget the fatty walking down the stairs and loudly lamenting her inability to lose weight… with a doughnut in either hand. Or the woman at the Dairy Queen who was sitting at a nearby table theorizing about the possibility of her thyroid being overactive while scarfing down a Peanut Buster Parfait, a Banana Split and what looked like a Hot Fudge Brownie Delight.

Venus Williams laments her second-class status:

Wimbledon has sent me a message: I’m only a second-class champion…. I intend to keep doing everything I can until Billie Jean’s original dream of equality is made real. It’s a shame that the name of the greatest tournament in tennis, an event that should be a positive symbol for the sport, is tarnished.

Beat Federer and then you can call yourself a champion, Venus. Until then, you’re merely the best of a lesser group of athletes, at least, you would be if you weren’t getting eliminated in the second round.

And who cares about a “dream of equality” from someone who played in a sham competition with special rules designed to benefit her at the expense of her opponent?

I don’t mind girls’ athletics, except for basketball which is not only lame but seems to be murder on young female ACLs. I’m one of the few coaches who allows girls to play on what is a predominantly boys’ team, but they get no special treatment. And I loathe the equalitarians who talk equality in theory, but like Billie Jean King, expect special treatment for the girls in practice. It was for just that reason that two seasons ago, I went out of my way to let my players humiliate the local girls’ All-Star team in the semifinals of a big tournament.

My boys were winning 2-0, and I’d taken off three of my best players as I usually do to avoid running up the score when we have a lead. The ref had been calling a lot of ticky-tack fouls on my guys, (most of whom were a head shorter than the girls), but I didn’t think much of it until we scored again and the boy who scored bumped into the goalie after the ball was already in the back of the net. Unbelievably, the ref disallowed the goal. The boys were furious, but I stayed calm until a girl blatantly used both hands to pull down one of my midfielders from behind by the shoulders, then tripped over him and was given a free kick. She even pretended to hurt herself although she’d added injury to insult by landing on top of the poor kid. That was the single most ridiculous call I’d seen since an African referee disallowed a goal my junior year of high school on the grounds that had the goal posts been curved instead of rectangular, the ball would not have gone in.

I wanted to lose my temper, but I wasn’t about to do so in front of the boys since our whole approach to the game revolves around discipline. Still, I was seriously pissed. There was no way the ref had been confused, he’d seen the whole thing, and the other coach was actually applauding his players for their ridiculous play-acting and she-thuggery. It was clearly a purposeful effort to aid the poor little overmatched All-Stars. At this point, four of my starters were out, so I called them over to me – all the boys were practically breathing fire by this time – and issued one very simple order: crush them.

It was like releasing the slavering hounds. Although the game was two-thirds over already, the boys managed to put eight more balls in the net before the whistle blew. That was six more goals than we’d scored against any other team, including the lowly ones, so their coach got the message loud and clear. After the game, he came over and began vehemently protesting our “unsportsmanship” but he finally ground to a halt as my only response to his complaints was a contemptuous stare.

“Either play the game, or don’t play at all,” I finally told him. Belatedly realizing that he didn’t have a leg to stand on, he apologized, we shook hands and that was that.

If Venus and company want to be considered first-class champions, there’s a simple answer. Go out and beat the best. And if you can’t, then you’re not a real champion anyhow. In any event, at least do yourself the favor of testing yourself against the best and seeing where you really stand. I know how it feels to be the best of an inferior lot – I was a white sprinter – and the telling thing is that my best times were always recorded when finishing third or fifth or seventh against the brothers, never when I was winning races against white guys.

UPDATE: Speaking of the sexes and tennis, Scott Adams chimes in:

Later today I have a tennis match against a 20-year old woman who plays for her college team on a tennis scholarship. Her mom is the tennis pro at the health club where I play. I am still formulating my strategy for avoiding embarrassment. My current plan is to run head first into the net post when the score reaches 5-0….

The good news is that I hit enough “Kennedys” to actually win. The bad news is that my opponent has renounced tennis and joined the Witness Protection Program so that no one at the club will ask her how the match went.

Ilkya ponders the effable:

I’m interested in what makes a guy think it’s perfectly okay to storm over to some woman’s site, sneer at her femaleness, settle into a cordial debate with the male commenters that includes such pompous jolly-goodisms as “my good man” being exchanged, and insist that the woman has really gotta get over her obsession with inequality and oppression. How does a dude do that without collapsing under the weight of the irony?

As for the first part, I imagine it’s much the same thing that makes a girl think it’s perfectly okay to storm over to some man’s site and sneer at his imagined sexual inadequacies. The difference is that since a) the average man is less perfectly irrational than the average woman, and, b) the average man is less self-obsessed than the average woman, it is easier for two men who disagree profoundly to have a civil and impersonal discussion.

For example, there are no shortage of men here who profoundly disagree with me here. I absolutely LOATHE the Bush administration and yet the majority of readers here actually VOTED for the man and would do so again if given the chance.

The fact that I may think they are ignorant tools and that they believe I am a tin foil-covered lunatic does not mean we cannot get along and discuss things with genuine friendliness. But the mere fact that I subscribe to a view of women voting that is the historical norm and also happens to be the current view of the majority throughout the world, most women can’t even bear to read my opinions on the World Cup, let alone have a civil discussion on a subject on which we clearly disagree.

This is, of course, the natural consequence of subscribing to a view which insists that the political is personal. If you insists on viewing all political opposition as a personal offense and reacting accordingly, you will not only find it very difficult to hold civil discussions with anyone who disagrees with you, but will soon find it impossible to argue in a manner which a disinterested third party will find convincing.

I note with some amusement that Ilkya’s readers couldn’t even comment upon her post without accusing Amanda’s critics of being frustrated about their supposed inability to receive sexual gratification from her. The lesson is that if you want to engage in a civil debate, you must treat your opponent with civility. And yes, ladies, everyone with more than a third of a brain is capable of picking up passive-aggressive attacks, so don’t think you’re being either civil or clever if you’re making use of them.

I was disappointed to see England go out against Portugal, especially in the same manner in which they exited Euro 2004. I’m still not sure about why Rooney drew the red card, to me it looked like he was trying to fight through a foul and accidentally stepped on the Portuguese defender, but I think it would be a bit much for England to blame the loss on that. England never looked like scoring with Rooney alone 30 meters in front of the midfield, in fact, all of their best chances came when they were down to ten men and had Crouch winning long balls up front.

I thought it was a mistake to start Gary Neville in back, but this time he managed to avoid getting burned and even made a few Roberto Carlos-like runs up the touch line. That worked out fine, but Sven’s decision to stick with the misguided 4-5-1 formation really blunted England’s ability to attack.

Portugal was unimpressive, except for Ricardo’s aplomb in defending penalties. Figo is a very skilled player, but a poor leader and his tendency to fall and look for the foul every time he gets touched slows their attack down to molasses. Christian Ronaldo and Maniche were good, but except for one or two moments, Portugal never looked dangerous even when up a man.

And so the long, tawdry saga of Sven Goran Erickson comes to an end. I think I’ll actually miss the old pervy, freaky-haired Swede and the bizarre headlines he always managed to generate, but I think England will do better without him. I don’t think England fans should be too disappointed, as even if they had managed to get past the Portugeuse, they never looked like beating France, still less Brazil.

As for the second game, I will be shocked if France manages to stay with Brazil this time. Brazil has been on cruise control up until now, but they’ll be looking to revenge their 3-0 defeat in the 1998 final so I expect to see more out of them this afternoon.

UPDATE: I am shocked, but also pleased, to have the chance to see more Zidane in action after the French captain lead his team to an upset of the favorites. He was simply fantastic today, and while he may no longer be “at the pinnacle of his art”, he is still a player of rare grace and skill. Knowing it would probably be his last international game seemed to take the pressure off him, he was quite visibly having a good time and his spirit seemed to rub off on the rest of the team. Ronaldinho may be the two-time world player of the year, but he was lost in Zhizou’s shadow throughout the game.

France played very well, like the France of 1998. Of course, with only a few exceptions, this is the France of 1998. I don’t think Brazil should have started Ronaldo, who was completely ineffective, but the real problem was in the midfield which saw Kaka, Gilberto and Ronaldinho dominated by Zidane, Ribery and Viera. Like Beckham, I think Ronaldinho is at his best on the wing, and it’s interesting to see how even a supremely skilled team cannot produce much attacking force without a solid base in the midfield. Despite the low score, it was one of the more entertaining games of this world cup.

I still think the Germans and the Portugeuse are pretenders, so I’m expecting a replay of the Euro 2000 championship in the final. This time, however, Italy should outlast the aging French team.

I thought conservatives prided themselves on substantive responses and fact-based argumentation rather than baseless emotional retorts. Jonah Goldberg writes on NRO:

Morgan Reynolds has lost his marbles. Reynolds used to do great work at NCPA. Now, he’s peddling the idea that Bush orchestrated 9/11. Of course, the large tinfoil hat community in Madison is giving him a welcome reception. What a shame all around.

So, we’re supposed to believe that the same institution which orchestrated the Maine, the Lusitania and the Tonkin Gulf incident, which lied to the American people about its intentions to enter WWI and WWII and still asserts that TWA 800 spontaneously combusted, was somehow incapable of perpetrating a similar fraud on the American people in 2001?

We are supposed to believe that an institution which murdered American citizens at Ruby Ridge and Waco would never dream of harming Americans in in New York City?

Now, when a member of the administration openly asserts that the organization to which he belonged was responsible for a lethal criminal act, the conservative commentariat’s reaction is to plunge their heads into the sand while warbling that the man is crazy. It’s not only cowardly, it is irresponsible. The shame lies with Goldberg and company, not Reynolds, even if Reynolds is incorrect.

[Morgan] Reynolds, the former director of the Criminal Justice Center at the National Center for Policy Analysis, and the ex-top economist for George W. Bush’s Labor Department, charged the Bush administration with gross malfeasance, and proposed the prosecution of top administration officials.

Normally, if a prestigious UW alumnus and ex-Bush administration official were to come to the Wisconsin Historical Society to spill the beans about a Bush administration scandal, it would make the news. The local TV stations would cover it, and it would merit front page headlines in The Capital Times and Wisconsin State Journal….

Despite the prestigious speaker and venue, and the gravity of the charges aired, for most Americans indeed most Madisonians the event never happened. Why? Because it was censored, subjected to a total media blackout. Not a word in the State Journal. Not a word in The Capital Times. Not a word on the local TV news. Not a word on local radio news. And, of course, not a word in the national media.

Why the blackout? Because Reynolds violated the ultimate U.S. media taboo. He charges the Bush administration with orchestrating the 9/11 attacks as a pretext for launching a preplanned “long war” in the Middle East, rolling back our civil liberties, and massively increasing military spending.

When a former Bush administration insider makes such charges, how can the media ignore them? Is Reynolds a lone crank? Hardly. A long list of prominent Americans have spoken out for 9/11 truth: Rev. William Sloane Coffin, Sen. Barbara Boxer, former head of the Star Wars program Col. Robert Bowman, ex-Reagan administration economics guru Paul Craig Roberts, progressive Jewish author-activist Rabbi Michael Lerner, former CIA official Ray McGovern, author-essayist Gore Vidal, and many other respected names from across the political spectrum have gone on the record for 9/11 truth.

Are the media ignoring all these people, and dozens more like them, because there is no evidence to support their charges? Hardly. Overwhelming evidence, from the obvious air defense stand-down, to the nonprotection of the president in Florida, to the blatant controlled demolition of World Trade Center building 7, proves that 9/11 was an inside job. As noted philosopher-theologian and 9/11 revisionist historian David Griffin writes: “It is already possible to know, beyond a reasonable doubt, one very important thing: the destruction of the World Trade Center was an inside job, orchestrated by terrorists within our own government.”

I don’t know who was responsible for 9/11. And neither do you. There are a whole range of possibilities, from the entire operation being a nefarious internal plot to it genuinely being an Islamic terrorist action that was passively observed – although the standing-down of the air defense system does suggest at least a degree of government complicity. Given how police and federal agents often allow petty criminals to act in the hopes of catching the more important ones, it does not seem unreasonable to consider the possibility that none of the complicit government observers expected the towers to collapse, without which the administration would have been given the chance to go after al Qaeda and Saddam Hussein at a lower cost than in most of the previous incidents now known to have been orchestrated.

In any case, Mr. Reynolds likely knows rather more about the situation than any individual outside the administration. Furthermore, American history clearly indicates that whatever the U.S. government’s official story might happen to be, it is a false one.

A woman trains her husband in the New York Times:

The central lesson I learned from exotic animal trainers is that I should reward behavior I like and ignore behavior I don’t. After all, you don’t get a sea lion to balance a ball on the end of its nose by nagging. The same goes for the American husband.

Back in Maine, I began thanking Scott if he threw one dirty shirt into the hamper. If he threw in two, I’d kiss him. Meanwhile, I would step over any soiled clothes on the floor without one sharp word, though I did sometimes kick them under the bed. But as he basked in my appreciation, the piles became smaller.

No doubt this has been the most popular article in the NY Times thanks to the nod to equalitarian sensibilities in comparing men to animals. But rewarding positive behavior isn’t exactly new, after all, every incentive plan from auto sales to NFL contracts is based on the concept.

What is useful is the encouragement to avoid the concept of punishing negative behavior. While punishment is effective and even required in some relationships, such as the parent-child one, it’s actually destructive in romantic and marital relationships. The man or woman who deals out the silent treatment or plays the “no sex for you” game (or its alternative, the “no money for you” game), deserves to suffer the natural consequences of such activities.

People are smarter than animals, so they should theoretically be much easier to train. Of course, the trick, as with animals, is to be consistent in the delivery of rewards. Unfortunately for men, they are much easier to train than women since the answer to “what do men want” is usually more easily found than the one for Freud’s famous question.