The last half of this article further outlines his past charity work and how it came back to comfort him through his struggle with cancer and the first part is about him planning his comeback.
The Sun Online - Life: Second coming of Mr T
But the middle explains why his comeback will be sans bling:
"Off-screen, Mr T is lending a helping hand to the survivors of Hurricane Katrina.
The tragedy deeply affected the 53-year-old Christian star, who was so moved by what happened in New Orleans that it convinced him to give up his trademark gold chains.
He said: 'I watched my people, the black people, screaming, begging and crying just for water.
'They didn't want diamond rings or new houses, they just wanted water, and they couldn't get any.
'I knew that soon I would be going around visiting these people in homeless shelters and it would be a sin against God and a sin against humanity to go around there wearing a million-dollars worth of gold chains, rings and diamonds.
'It would be wrong for me to say 'it's going to be alright buddy' and then go about my business. That would be a lie.
'People need to see that Mr T has a heart of gold, not just the gold that drips around my neck.
'That's my wardrobe, my uniform, but I will never wear it again.'"
Wow.
Tuesday, November 29, 2005
Monday, November 28, 2005
Smarmy annoying person eases towards sensibility, refuses to drop the smarmy annoyingness.
Yeah, so I did it. I didn't want to, but you know it is kind of like watching a trainwreck. So hard not to take just one more look at the horror of it all. I went back to scott adams' blog to see if he had dabbled in carrying intelligent design's water.
of course he has:
The Dilbert Blog
Again he starts up with his, 'Gee a bunch of crazy people got all worked up because I am so clever and they can't see that I am baiting them' crap. Yeah, we know you are trying to just be cute like some asshole vegan teenager trying to bait the adults into an argument at thanksgiving, but with a large audience who loves you based on your ability to make corporate life seem enlightening in its nilism, you get extra attention, even if it is a stunt and chances are you will never read a word I write. Anyway, the science folks seem to be wearing him down, even if he is still acting like an ass in his capitulation:
"I understand the argument for excluding Intelligent Design from science classes. Most scientists believe it doesn't meet the definition of science. You can't argue with the people who MAKE the definitions. If the vast majority say it doesn't have enough substance to qualify as science, that's okay with me. But I have to wonder if that's the real reason most scientists oppose including it in schools. I would expect scientists to welcome such a clear model of something that is NOT science, as an example of exactly that.
"Kids, astronomy is science and astrology isn't. Here are some more examples of things that aren't science..."
Sure, it might confuse the dumb kids, but they aren't the ones building the spaceships of tomorrow anyway. I learned about not using 'ain't' in English class and that didn't hurt me too much. So it just seems fishy to me that scientists are so worked up about Intelligent Design. Could their true fear be the slippery slope argument? If you let ID in the door, before long we'll all be wearing scraggly beards and beating ourselves with prayer paddles."
"You can't argue with the people who MAKE the definitions." Uh, can we say bitchy and juvenile? Whatever dude, that is the i.d./creationist crowd's modus operandi. The whole point they are trying to make to attack the Enlightenment. They see all teaching that is not squarely rooted in a literal interpretation of the Bible to be the enemy. No, not all proponents view the battle as such; there are plenty (some of my relatives surely, shamefully, included in this number) who jump in on the wrong side of this battle simply because they understand it as evolution being true meaning God doesn't exist and haven't thought through the implications of what they are positing. "Does God exist?" is in no danger of disappearing as a philosophical/theological question, but whether or not it has a place as part of a science curriculum has long been settled. Evolution wasn't accepted as the unifying theory in biology because of some nefarious plot by some evil cabal of athiest "darwinist" trying to do satan's work to lead good christian souls off to hell. And that is the gist of the creationism folks.
The side of the mouth disparragement of the folks who MAKE the definitions really boils down to the same thing: an attack on modern inquiry. Scientist don't MAKE definitions out of thin air. The suggestion is that they can't be trusted because they are lording over these arbitratary definitions, keeping out disparate ideas like intelligent design. This isn't just some stupid turf war ('We want to make the rules!' 'No, we get too!'), this is about the fundamental ways that modern knowledge has and continues to progress. If you throw out evolution over religious qualms and try to insert untested/untestable religious dogma into the cannon based on political pressure, you are throwing out the scientific method. You are taking the first step back towards a preindustrial world. You can argue all you want about the troubles that have come along with the modern world, but you throw out all the advances of the last couple of centuries when you start pulling the rug out from under science.
And the 'Golly, why wouldn't scientists want to use it in classes to contrast between real science and fake science?' crap can be dropped right now. If that was the point you were trying to make, you had three other posts to make it but surely in all the research you have done you aren't dumb enought to think that you are representing either side with that suggestion. Teachers already do that plenty. More than a few of my college course made it a point to emphasize being critical and demanding of sources of information and either pointed out or asked us to find examples of pseudo-science and compare and contrast what made it un-scientific. No one on the science side of this argument is arguing against that and that isn't for a second what the i.d. folks are fighting for. They are trying to shove the stuff in to be held up next to the theory of natural selection and have teachers say, 'Or it could have happened this way.'
If in an argument with someone, and it is quickly becoming apparent that you are on the losing side of things, don't do mr. adams half-capitulation well-yeah-of-course-that's-right-I-meant-something-different-see-I'm-still-right-you-are-wrong dance. It ain't cute. Dude, shut up about the debate until you put the holier-than-though attitude down and take a couple of classes and read a few books. You side with the idiots and you are going to get reprimanded just like them.
of course he has:
The Dilbert Blog
Again he starts up with his, 'Gee a bunch of crazy people got all worked up because I am so clever and they can't see that I am baiting them' crap. Yeah, we know you are trying to just be cute like some asshole vegan teenager trying to bait the adults into an argument at thanksgiving, but with a large audience who loves you based on your ability to make corporate life seem enlightening in its nilism, you get extra attention, even if it is a stunt and chances are you will never read a word I write. Anyway, the science folks seem to be wearing him down, even if he is still acting like an ass in his capitulation:
"I understand the argument for excluding Intelligent Design from science classes. Most scientists believe it doesn't meet the definition of science. You can't argue with the people who MAKE the definitions. If the vast majority say it doesn't have enough substance to qualify as science, that's okay with me. But I have to wonder if that's the real reason most scientists oppose including it in schools. I would expect scientists to welcome such a clear model of something that is NOT science, as an example of exactly that.
"Kids, astronomy is science and astrology isn't. Here are some more examples of things that aren't science..."
Sure, it might confuse the dumb kids, but they aren't the ones building the spaceships of tomorrow anyway. I learned about not using 'ain't' in English class and that didn't hurt me too much. So it just seems fishy to me that scientists are so worked up about Intelligent Design. Could their true fear be the slippery slope argument? If you let ID in the door, before long we'll all be wearing scraggly beards and beating ourselves with prayer paddles."
"You can't argue with the people who MAKE the definitions." Uh, can we say bitchy and juvenile? Whatever dude, that is the i.d./creationist crowd's modus operandi. The whole point they are trying to make to attack the Enlightenment. They see all teaching that is not squarely rooted in a literal interpretation of the Bible to be the enemy. No, not all proponents view the battle as such; there are plenty (some of my relatives surely, shamefully, included in this number) who jump in on the wrong side of this battle simply because they understand it as evolution being true meaning God doesn't exist and haven't thought through the implications of what they are positing. "Does God exist?" is in no danger of disappearing as a philosophical/theological question, but whether or not it has a place as part of a science curriculum has long been settled. Evolution wasn't accepted as the unifying theory in biology because of some nefarious plot by some evil cabal of athiest "darwinist" trying to do satan's work to lead good christian souls off to hell. And that is the gist of the creationism folks.
The side of the mouth disparragement of the folks who MAKE the definitions really boils down to the same thing: an attack on modern inquiry. Scientist don't MAKE definitions out of thin air. The suggestion is that they can't be trusted because they are lording over these arbitratary definitions, keeping out disparate ideas like intelligent design. This isn't just some stupid turf war ('We want to make the rules!' 'No, we get too!'), this is about the fundamental ways that modern knowledge has and continues to progress. If you throw out evolution over religious qualms and try to insert untested/untestable religious dogma into the cannon based on political pressure, you are throwing out the scientific method. You are taking the first step back towards a preindustrial world. You can argue all you want about the troubles that have come along with the modern world, but you throw out all the advances of the last couple of centuries when you start pulling the rug out from under science.
And the 'Golly, why wouldn't scientists want to use it in classes to contrast between real science and fake science?' crap can be dropped right now. If that was the point you were trying to make, you had three other posts to make it but surely in all the research you have done you aren't dumb enought to think that you are representing either side with that suggestion. Teachers already do that plenty. More than a few of my college course made it a point to emphasize being critical and demanding of sources of information and either pointed out or asked us to find examples of pseudo-science and compare and contrast what made it un-scientific. No one on the science side of this argument is arguing against that and that isn't for a second what the i.d. folks are fighting for. They are trying to shove the stuff in to be held up next to the theory of natural selection and have teachers say, 'Or it could have happened this way.'
If in an argument with someone, and it is quickly becoming apparent that you are on the losing side of things, don't do mr. adams half-capitulation well-yeah-of-course-that's-right-I-meant-something-different-see-I'm-still-right-you-are-wrong dance. It ain't cute. Dude, shut up about the debate until you put the holier-than-though attitude down and take a couple of classes and read a few books. You side with the idiots and you are going to get reprimanded just like them.
Wednesday, November 23, 2005
Some folks should stick to their medium.
I love reading the funnies, and have a special place in my heart for those most brilliant cartoonists. I owe a huge debt to Bill Waterson (I hate everyone of you fuckers with those stupid Calvin pissing on ford/chevy stickers on your car; way to ruin it for everyone, assholes), Berkely Breathed, Gary Larson, and Gary Trudeau for their role in helping me form my world view. They may seem silly, but read every day and framing current events and human situations in unique and humorous ways helps shape curious little developing minds. I later came to also love Dilbert, The Boondocks, Get Fuzzy, and Non Sequitor. I would read the other ones, even Family Circus and Cathy and I have a strange place in my heart for Prince Valiant, but these are the ones that I look forward to reading, that really seemed to have something to really add to interpretation of the human experience.
Dilbert I relate to perhaps less than the others because I tend to do my best to stay away from beauracracy and corporate life as much as is possible in this modern world of ours, but I still find the strip funny and entertaining. scott adams can write a comic strip. But having just been introduced to his blog, I think I'll do my best to steer clear of it. It comes across as smarmy and obnoxiously know-it-all in a sort of you-can't-trust-anything kind of way that is as useless as it is annoying.
Anyone who knows me knows about how much I like folks jumping into scientific debates without knowing much of anything about what they are talking about. So maybe I would be kinder on mr. adams had I not first found him throwing his hat in with the intelligent design folks:
The Dilbert Blog: Intelligent Design, Part 1
PZ Meyers does a wonderful job of taking apart his arguments piece by piece, so I'll mostly defer to him:
Pharyngula::Scott Adams is a Wally
From reading scott's second post about how uncredible and ridiculous everyone is on either side of the debate, I am certain he would take ofense as me characterizing him as being in cahootze with the i.d.ers, but his post seems mostly aimed at arguing that science is basically untrustworthy and uses their terminology for framing the debate, so pardon me if I take his i'm-neutral posturing as unconvincing.
He then has a third post on the debacle titled "Who Is Credible to Me?" It is no more illuminating and only further makes my heart sink as one more fairly talented person in his main medium comes across as an obnoxious pointless contrarian outside of it.
There are just a few little things about his arguments that I want to question before I wash my hands of this whole mess. In the first post, he opines:
"First of all, you’d be hard pressed to find a useful debate about Darwinism and Intelligent Design, of the sort that you could use to form your own opinion. I can’t find one, and I’ve looked. What you have instead is each side misrepresenting the other’s position and then making a good argument for why the misrepresentation is wrong. (If you don’t believe me, just watch the comments I get to this post.)"
and
"The Intelligent Design people have a not-so-kooky argument against the idea of trusting 90%+ of scientists. They point out that evolution is supported by different branches of science (paleontologists, microbiologists, etc.) and those folks are specialists who only understand their own field. That’s no problem, you think, because each scientist validates Darwinism from his or her own specialty, then they all compare notes, and everything fits. Right?
"Here’s where it gets interesting. The Intelligent Design people allege that some experts within each narrow field are NOT convinced that the evidence within their specialty is a slam-dunk support of Darwin. Each branch of science, they say, has pro-Darwinists who acknowledge that while they assume the other branches of science have more solid evidence for Darwinism, their own branch is lacking in that high level of certainty. In other words, the scientists are in a weird peer pressure, herd mentality loop where they think that the other guy must have the “good stuff.”
"Is that possible? I have no way of knowing."
Please, mr. scott, where have you looked? I really honestly want to know what you have read about biology. Have you taken a college level biology course, have you read _On the Origin of the Species_ or any of the more modern books on the subject? I wouldn't start with Richard Dawkins if you are new to science, but Stephen J. Gould wrote expansively and skillfully for a popular audience as has E. O. Wilson. Really, what texts are you basing your arguments on? Where does you understanding of science come from? Your arguments sound like someone who read one book on intelligent design and a couple of articles written for Time or the Washington Post about the controversy instead of actually reading about science.
And as to the idea that specialists understand only their little field and are assuming other branches hold the real evidence for evolution, please tell me you are kidding. For my undergraduate degree in marine biology, we had to take a broad range of biology classes in addition to physics classes, general and organic chemistry classes, geology, and oceanography. Functioning in biology requires a broad understanding of sciences in general and while scientists may have pet specializations, they have to have an abilty to put their work in a larger frame work for it to be very useful. It isn't a bunch of isolated, near-sighted hermits carving out these tiny little pieces of knowledge that are then cobbled together willy-nilly based on some assuptions about other folks over the way knowing something that makes their version work.
One more little peeve, the suggestion that it is ridiculous to lump the i.d. folks in with the creationist folks. When we talk about intelligent design, we aren't talking about biologists who believe in god. A scientist religious beliefs are irrelavent if they don't taint his work. The folks promoting i.d. are promoting it for religious/political reasons. Dig into who is backing the i.d. stuff and where the i.d. curriculums are coming from. It still wouldn't be included as science even if it was just what folks say it is; what are you going to test for? How does it become anything other than an anecdotal argument ("Look at how beautiful and wonderful everything is? Kind of makes you believe there is someone out there. You can see god's hand in nature's beauty and function.") and if it isn't, then why are people trying to insert it into curricula? It is being promoted as an assault on science and an attempt to sow doubt in the public sphere about biology and evolution because these are used to argue against folks' uncritical acceptance of religious dogma. I saw Julia Sweeney's one-woman show "Letting Go of God" last week and a particularly amusing part was about dating a fellow that was into intelligent design. (if you can go see the show, i highly recommend it.)
Anyway, whatever. scott adams never was really that high in the pantheon of comic strip artists and this really can be left separate from appreciation of his little cartoon world which is so enjoyable, so I can just turn away from the annoying blog and be done with it. I really hope he does take the time to read more about science though. For the uninnitiated, I really do recommend Stephen J. Gould as a good starting point. All of his books are excellent and often collections of stand-alone essays so they don't necessary require cover to cover reading to take something useful away (though reading cover to cover is still encouraged).
Dilbert I relate to perhaps less than the others because I tend to do my best to stay away from beauracracy and corporate life as much as is possible in this modern world of ours, but I still find the strip funny and entertaining. scott adams can write a comic strip. But having just been introduced to his blog, I think I'll do my best to steer clear of it. It comes across as smarmy and obnoxiously know-it-all in a sort of you-can't-trust-anything kind of way that is as useless as it is annoying.
Anyone who knows me knows about how much I like folks jumping into scientific debates without knowing much of anything about what they are talking about. So maybe I would be kinder on mr. adams had I not first found him throwing his hat in with the intelligent design folks:
The Dilbert Blog: Intelligent Design, Part 1
PZ Meyers does a wonderful job of taking apart his arguments piece by piece, so I'll mostly defer to him:
Pharyngula::Scott Adams is a Wally
From reading scott's second post about how uncredible and ridiculous everyone is on either side of the debate, I am certain he would take ofense as me characterizing him as being in cahootze with the i.d.ers, but his post seems mostly aimed at arguing that science is basically untrustworthy and uses their terminology for framing the debate, so pardon me if I take his i'm-neutral posturing as unconvincing.
He then has a third post on the debacle titled "Who Is Credible to Me?" It is no more illuminating and only further makes my heart sink as one more fairly talented person in his main medium comes across as an obnoxious pointless contrarian outside of it.
There are just a few little things about his arguments that I want to question before I wash my hands of this whole mess. In the first post, he opines:
"First of all, you’d be hard pressed to find a useful debate about Darwinism and Intelligent Design, of the sort that you could use to form your own opinion. I can’t find one, and I’ve looked. What you have instead is each side misrepresenting the other’s position and then making a good argument for why the misrepresentation is wrong. (If you don’t believe me, just watch the comments I get to this post.)"
and
"The Intelligent Design people have a not-so-kooky argument against the idea of trusting 90%+ of scientists. They point out that evolution is supported by different branches of science (paleontologists, microbiologists, etc.) and those folks are specialists who only understand their own field. That’s no problem, you think, because each scientist validates Darwinism from his or her own specialty, then they all compare notes, and everything fits. Right?
"Here’s where it gets interesting. The Intelligent Design people allege that some experts within each narrow field are NOT convinced that the evidence within their specialty is a slam-dunk support of Darwin. Each branch of science, they say, has pro-Darwinists who acknowledge that while they assume the other branches of science have more solid evidence for Darwinism, their own branch is lacking in that high level of certainty. In other words, the scientists are in a weird peer pressure, herd mentality loop where they think that the other guy must have the “good stuff.”
"Is that possible? I have no way of knowing."
Please, mr. scott, where have you looked? I really honestly want to know what you have read about biology. Have you taken a college level biology course, have you read _On the Origin of the Species_ or any of the more modern books on the subject? I wouldn't start with Richard Dawkins if you are new to science, but Stephen J. Gould wrote expansively and skillfully for a popular audience as has E. O. Wilson. Really, what texts are you basing your arguments on? Where does you understanding of science come from? Your arguments sound like someone who read one book on intelligent design and a couple of articles written for Time or the Washington Post about the controversy instead of actually reading about science.
And as to the idea that specialists understand only their little field and are assuming other branches hold the real evidence for evolution, please tell me you are kidding. For my undergraduate degree in marine biology, we had to take a broad range of biology classes in addition to physics classes, general and organic chemistry classes, geology, and oceanography. Functioning in biology requires a broad understanding of sciences in general and while scientists may have pet specializations, they have to have an abilty to put their work in a larger frame work for it to be very useful. It isn't a bunch of isolated, near-sighted hermits carving out these tiny little pieces of knowledge that are then cobbled together willy-nilly based on some assuptions about other folks over the way knowing something that makes their version work.
One more little peeve, the suggestion that it is ridiculous to lump the i.d. folks in with the creationist folks. When we talk about intelligent design, we aren't talking about biologists who believe in god. A scientist religious beliefs are irrelavent if they don't taint his work. The folks promoting i.d. are promoting it for religious/political reasons. Dig into who is backing the i.d. stuff and where the i.d. curriculums are coming from. It still wouldn't be included as science even if it was just what folks say it is; what are you going to test for? How does it become anything other than an anecdotal argument ("Look at how beautiful and wonderful everything is? Kind of makes you believe there is someone out there. You can see god's hand in nature's beauty and function.") and if it isn't, then why are people trying to insert it into curricula? It is being promoted as an assault on science and an attempt to sow doubt in the public sphere about biology and evolution because these are used to argue against folks' uncritical acceptance of religious dogma. I saw Julia Sweeney's one-woman show "Letting Go of God" last week and a particularly amusing part was about dating a fellow that was into intelligent design. (if you can go see the show, i highly recommend it.)
Anyway, whatever. scott adams never was really that high in the pantheon of comic strip artists and this really can be left separate from appreciation of his little cartoon world which is so enjoyable, so I can just turn away from the annoying blog and be done with it. I really hope he does take the time to read more about science though. For the uninnitiated, I really do recommend Stephen J. Gould as a good starting point. All of his books are excellent and often collections of stand-alone essays so they don't necessary require cover to cover reading to take something useful away (though reading cover to cover is still encouraged).
Off-handed sexism and such...
I haven't been reading Atrios as much lately as I used to, so I really am in no position to really jump into this argument with Ann Althouse over feminism or the lack thereof, except to say that I have read the blog for a long time and find the commentary to be generally agreeable.
So I am not going to comment on their particular argument. They can sort that out. I usually don't read comments on the big sites unless really compelled, so I certainly don't care to hop in a pissing war over who has worse commentors. Whatev', yo.
But I read a few of Ann's comments and this one jumped out at me:
"Ann,
Off handed sexism is alive and well among liberal men. So is incredibly insesitive comments related to gays and lesbians. In fact, the only group they really seem to be mostly politically correct about are African Americans.
What does that say about the actual state of affairs in this country?"
Huh? Sexism alive and well amongst men and insensitive comments about gays and lesbians? Yup, it happens in right here in America, folks. That some liberal men are sometimes off-handedly sexist is shocking and damning how? (stay with me for a minute before getting all in a huff)
The difference is that part and parcel to liberal play of the game is examining and facing down our own prejudices as we also look at those in society as a whole. Folks claiming to be liberal aren't claiming to be perfect and free from taint and baggage. I deal with mine everyday and will be til I die, but I'm working hard to deal with what I find and always further challenge myself to base my views on sex/race/gender/etc. on an ever deepening understanding. I want to approach and deal with my prejudices with discernment and work towards moving them to a more realistic and nuanced place rather than bemoan the world changing from a framework in which my set (white males) could have our pet prejudices and expound on them with impunity. This is the conservative mind set. Why can't things be rolled back to the place where we could be openly racist/sexist/homophobic like the way they used to be? I hardly think such open nostalgia for cultural hedgemony is the same thing as liberals not yet having rid sexism/racism/homophobia completely from their ranks. Its all in where you are aiming folks. The right is aiming at putting blacks/gays/women/po'folks back in their place; the left is aiming at making this country a place for everyone equally. The whiney right critics can kiss my happy ass. Mess with my splinters after you deal with your planks.
I've more to say about this subject, wanting to address directly misogyny amongst gay men, but that will have to wait for now.
So I am not going to comment on their particular argument. They can sort that out. I usually don't read comments on the big sites unless really compelled, so I certainly don't care to hop in a pissing war over who has worse commentors. Whatev', yo.
But I read a few of Ann's comments and this one jumped out at me:
"Ann,
Off handed sexism is alive and well among liberal men. So is incredibly insesitive comments related to gays and lesbians. In fact, the only group they really seem to be mostly politically correct about are African Americans.
What does that say about the actual state of affairs in this country?"
Huh? Sexism alive and well amongst men and insensitive comments about gays and lesbians? Yup, it happens in right here in America, folks. That some liberal men are sometimes off-handedly sexist is shocking and damning how? (stay with me for a minute before getting all in a huff)
The difference is that part and parcel to liberal play of the game is examining and facing down our own prejudices as we also look at those in society as a whole. Folks claiming to be liberal aren't claiming to be perfect and free from taint and baggage. I deal with mine everyday and will be til I die, but I'm working hard to deal with what I find and always further challenge myself to base my views on sex/race/gender/etc. on an ever deepening understanding. I want to approach and deal with my prejudices with discernment and work towards moving them to a more realistic and nuanced place rather than bemoan the world changing from a framework in which my set (white males) could have our pet prejudices and expound on them with impunity. This is the conservative mind set. Why can't things be rolled back to the place where we could be openly racist/sexist/homophobic like the way they used to be? I hardly think such open nostalgia for cultural hedgemony is the same thing as liberals not yet having rid sexism/racism/homophobia completely from their ranks. Its all in where you are aiming folks. The right is aiming at putting blacks/gays/women/po'folks back in their place; the left is aiming at making this country a place for everyone equally. The whiney right critics can kiss my happy ass. Mess with my splinters after you deal with your planks.
I've more to say about this subject, wanting to address directly misogyny amongst gay men, but that will have to wait for now.
Tuesday, November 22, 2005
Recognition is funny
I'm not going to link to the post, because I generally don't link to blogs which seem to be written for an audience of close friends unless I know said person well and they have said they don't mind being linked to, but I was looking through one of my friend's friends posts on livejournal trying to see if I could figure out who any of the other folks were (since we have many mutual friends) and came across a couple of posts which mentioned a party we recently had. It is always interesting to get folks impressions of you, particularly when they have no idea that you may ever read/hear what they have said.
We have color parties, as did some of our friends when we lived in Charleston. Now, as then, we go a little crazy with decking out the house in whatever color (we have done orange, blue, pink, and most recently brown) and are pretty militant about anyone coming to the party wearing at least some amount of whatever color. The nice and somewhat overwhelming thing about New York is that if you do something fun, it takes no time whatsoever for word to spread and for it to reach capacity. There are at least ten of us here in NYC who used to frequent the Charleston color parties, and each person invites a few, and BAM! you have some serious party momentum.
It is fun seeing how each color affects the mood of people at the party and the feel of the room. Orange was kind of boisterous and really happy; blue was strangely lascivious, with everyone just feeling kind of skeezy and with the mood just feeling like we were in the creepy, but not scary part of some fairytale; pink was like walking into a giant vagina, a bit heavier feeling than one might expect but upbeat and fun and people acting silly; brown was fun and kind of felt like being in a forest, but strangely the word that I heard more than a few people use to describe the feel of the room and the decorations was 'masculine'. Yes, with three of the five roommates being gay boys, there were a lot of men there, but I don't think that is what was meant by it, and generally a room full of homosexuals, even with lots of bearded brooklyn 'mos, doesn't generally elicit the adjective 'masculine' off the bat and the room was decorated with frilly cut brown paper hanging from the ceiling. But I kind of got what they meant. Surrounding yourself in one main color changes the mood of a crowd in interesting ways.
Anyway, as folks have spread the word about the party, there is a larger chunk of folks that attended the party that I know only peripherally or not at all. It has been kind of nice weird the last couple of weeks since the party having folks that I didn't even realize made it to the party or don't even recognize at all come up and start talking to me about the party or hearing someone talking about it not realizing I was one of the hosts.
Looking through the blogs of friends of my friend trying to figure out who was who, since the north brooklyn gay boy community is pretty interconnected, I came across a couple of posts about the party. More interesting than the actual posts was the comments section of a post from the day before where my friend C- was inviting his other friend to the party. So the invitee, trying to figure out who was throwing the party asked "is this the same d- with the icky moustache?"
The answer to which is, of course, "Yes" though I will argue with that icky part. I find it funnier than I find it insulting though. C- diplomatically confirmed "yeah, the boy with the mustache."
I'm leaving out bits of the dialogue, but this is my blog so only the parts about me are going to be discussed, so we continue:
"maybe i should start being nice to the boy with the moustache, but the reason i'm not is sort of silly. we see eachother everywhere and have mutual friends but he gives me bad looks and never says hi or has even introduced himself to me!!! !!! ! ! ! !"
I'm not sure who this is. There weren't enough details to tease out exactly which friend of friends this was who came to the party and I often run into out and about, so maybe I am actually mean to him and just can't think of who it is, but I imagine it is probably unintentional. I don't tend to snub folks intentionally unless I have a reason to, but I wonder how many folks I come across as aloof to? I am more used to people trying to steer clear of me because they think I am too forward rather than too unfriendly. I go to the same damn places over and over (I like my habitual ways; that was not meant as lament) and talk to about anyone who isn't rude and doesn't run away, but maybe I can come across as a big bruesque at times. Maybe that is why I like C- so much. He is way too hyper and enthusiastic and often scares the shit out of people with his complete lack of qualms about introducing himself to new people combined with his tendency to get louder and abruptly confessional when nervous. But he is upfront and fun to hang out with and serious about his silliness and doesn't beat around the bush, which sometimes rubs other folks the wrong way. Which I guess I also do sometimes.
Still, it strikes me as ridiculous to dislike someone else for never having introduced themselves if you haven't introduced yourself to them. Why should I be the initiator? Which C- points out:
"that is silly. you are so funny, how it is the other person's responsibility to introduce themselves, get rid of that way of thinking. and just say hi. he is a really nice, southern boy - so friendly. "
which seems to make sense to this mystery peep:
"it's his responsibility because i'm shy and stupid! but okay, i'll try harder. i'm from the south too sort of, so i can pretend to know what chitlins are for the sake of mustachioed-friendship."
While I do know what chitlins are, I've never eaten them, so no need to front. Anyway, this is probably the most boring post I have ever put up, but thought the whole thing was funny and what is the point of finding folks talking about you in cyberspace if you can't talk back a little?
We have color parties, as did some of our friends when we lived in Charleston. Now, as then, we go a little crazy with decking out the house in whatever color (we have done orange, blue, pink, and most recently brown) and are pretty militant about anyone coming to the party wearing at least some amount of whatever color. The nice and somewhat overwhelming thing about New York is that if you do something fun, it takes no time whatsoever for word to spread and for it to reach capacity. There are at least ten of us here in NYC who used to frequent the Charleston color parties, and each person invites a few, and BAM! you have some serious party momentum.
It is fun seeing how each color affects the mood of people at the party and the feel of the room. Orange was kind of boisterous and really happy; blue was strangely lascivious, with everyone just feeling kind of skeezy and with the mood just feeling like we were in the creepy, but not scary part of some fairytale; pink was like walking into a giant vagina, a bit heavier feeling than one might expect but upbeat and fun and people acting silly; brown was fun and kind of felt like being in a forest, but strangely the word that I heard more than a few people use to describe the feel of the room and the decorations was 'masculine'. Yes, with three of the five roommates being gay boys, there were a lot of men there, but I don't think that is what was meant by it, and generally a room full of homosexuals, even with lots of bearded brooklyn 'mos, doesn't generally elicit the adjective 'masculine' off the bat and the room was decorated with frilly cut brown paper hanging from the ceiling. But I kind of got what they meant. Surrounding yourself in one main color changes the mood of a crowd in interesting ways.
Anyway, as folks have spread the word about the party, there is a larger chunk of folks that attended the party that I know only peripherally or not at all. It has been kind of nice weird the last couple of weeks since the party having folks that I didn't even realize made it to the party or don't even recognize at all come up and start talking to me about the party or hearing someone talking about it not realizing I was one of the hosts.
Looking through the blogs of friends of my friend trying to figure out who was who, since the north brooklyn gay boy community is pretty interconnected, I came across a couple of posts about the party. More interesting than the actual posts was the comments section of a post from the day before where my friend C- was inviting his other friend to the party. So the invitee, trying to figure out who was throwing the party asked "is this the same d- with the icky moustache?"
The answer to which is, of course, "Yes" though I will argue with that icky part. I find it funnier than I find it insulting though. C- diplomatically confirmed "yeah, the boy with the mustache."
I'm leaving out bits of the dialogue, but this is my blog so only the parts about me are going to be discussed, so we continue:
"maybe i should start being nice to the boy with the moustache, but the reason i'm not is sort of silly. we see eachother everywhere and have mutual friends but he gives me bad looks and never says hi or has even introduced himself to me!!! !!! ! ! ! !"
I'm not sure who this is. There weren't enough details to tease out exactly which friend of friends this was who came to the party and I often run into out and about, so maybe I am actually mean to him and just can't think of who it is, but I imagine it is probably unintentional. I don't tend to snub folks intentionally unless I have a reason to, but I wonder how many folks I come across as aloof to? I am more used to people trying to steer clear of me because they think I am too forward rather than too unfriendly. I go to the same damn places over and over (I like my habitual ways; that was not meant as lament) and talk to about anyone who isn't rude and doesn't run away, but maybe I can come across as a big bruesque at times. Maybe that is why I like C- so much. He is way too hyper and enthusiastic and often scares the shit out of people with his complete lack of qualms about introducing himself to new people combined with his tendency to get louder and abruptly confessional when nervous. But he is upfront and fun to hang out with and serious about his silliness and doesn't beat around the bush, which sometimes rubs other folks the wrong way. Which I guess I also do sometimes.
Still, it strikes me as ridiculous to dislike someone else for never having introduced themselves if you haven't introduced yourself to them. Why should I be the initiator? Which C- points out:
"that is silly. you are so funny, how it is the other person's responsibility to introduce themselves, get rid of that way of thinking. and just say hi. he is a really nice, southern boy - so friendly. "
which seems to make sense to this mystery peep:
"it's his responsibility because i'm shy and stupid! but okay, i'll try harder. i'm from the south too sort of, so i can pretend to know what chitlins are for the sake of mustachioed-friendship."
While I do know what chitlins are, I've never eaten them, so no need to front. Anyway, this is probably the most boring post I have ever put up, but thought the whole thing was funny and what is the point of finding folks talking about you in cyberspace if you can't talk back a little?
Wednesday, November 16, 2005
Is bush a faggot?
I've railed more than a few times against bigotted idiot assumptions about sterotypes of the relationships that homos have with their parents. Maybe though since Spongedob and pals have such fun with hanging their idiot shit on us and trying to make our parents feel guilty to further alienate us and damage relationships, lets play this game in reverse:
Pandagon: 'Bush rarely speaks to father, family is split'
So bush is an emotional sissy who lashes out when criticized, has a history of abusing substances and partying, was a cheerleader in college, the pampered son of an over-doting mother who is now only talking to the mommy figures in his life and has long had a tense and distant relationship with his father, with whom he is practically no longer speaking. By everything that dobson and his ilk have told us, the kingpin retard should have grown up to be a big ole fag. Boys who are too close to their mothers become homos. Boys who have distant fathers become queer. Boys who aren't steered into macho sports become a little light in the loafers. So why shouldn't we believe that dear leader isn't some faggy-ass closet case just like so many other republican tools?
Because the idiots that promote that shit are idiots and assholes and my dad could have no more turned me into some paragon of heterosexuality by taking me hunting and forcing me to sign up for the football team than bush could have been made gay by his creepy dad favoring the fat asshole brother currently fucking up florida or by babs being delighted to have him as her little imperious, entitled, smart-ass clone sans pearls. You breeders can keep the fucker.
Pandagon: 'Bush rarely speaks to father, family is split'
So bush is an emotional sissy who lashes out when criticized, has a history of abusing substances and partying, was a cheerleader in college, the pampered son of an over-doting mother who is now only talking to the mommy figures in his life and has long had a tense and distant relationship with his father, with whom he is practically no longer speaking. By everything that dobson and his ilk have told us, the kingpin retard should have grown up to be a big ole fag. Boys who are too close to their mothers become homos. Boys who have distant fathers become queer. Boys who aren't steered into macho sports become a little light in the loafers. So why shouldn't we believe that dear leader isn't some faggy-ass closet case just like so many other republican tools?
Because the idiots that promote that shit are idiots and assholes and my dad could have no more turned me into some paragon of heterosexuality by taking me hunting and forcing me to sign up for the football team than bush could have been made gay by his creepy dad favoring the fat asshole brother currently fucking up florida or by babs being delighted to have him as her little imperious, entitled, smart-ass clone sans pearls. You breeders can keep the fucker.
Monday, November 14, 2005
I don't have words for this.
This is one woman's story of sorting through the wreckage of her father and aunt's home with her family and finding their bodies left there despite the assurance that the home had been searched.
Robert Lindsay: The Horror, the Horror: A Katrina Tale
I hope her experience is unique; I am fairly certain it isn't.
Robert Lindsay: The Horror, the Horror: A Katrina Tale
I hope her experience is unique; I am fairly certain it isn't.
Thursday, November 10, 2005
Huh?
It's no secret I am big country music fan. So I figure I could read the article the Times had today about a songwriter who is up for an award:
He Writes the Songs, Out of the Spotlight - New York Times
Ummmm, and then I remember why I generally skip over their music reviews:
"The country music industry is really two industries, divided between the music publishing companies that sell songs and the record companies that sell singers to the public. It was a music publishing company, Acuff-Rose, that helped establish Nashville as the capital of country music. And while rock fans expect their singers to be songwriters, too, country fans have grown comfortable with the division of labor; some of the most respected country singers, like George Strait, pride themselves on being interpreters, not composers. "
Yeah, in country music, one person writes the songs, someone else does the singing unlike rock with its singer-songwriters. Uh, what? So yeah Nashville has profession songwriters who write songs for other people; since when did rock bands not have songwriters? Yeah, the back street boys and ashlee simpson write all their own music. What, you don't concider them very rock, more pop? Well, I feel the same way about much of the music they are talking about coming out of Nashvegas. It is just country pop, and you have a bunch of pretty singing faces getting pegged to sell the songs just like you have with so many friggin' rock/whatever bands. If they sing well and I like them as a performer, I really don't care, but you always have to have a special place for singer/songwriters. I just find it kind of stupid to set this out in an article like rock is all about the singer/songwriters and country is about putting words in pretty hillbillies' mouths to make a buck. How cute, they take pride in singing well, even if they can't write too. How fucking patronizing can you get? I don't mean to dis any artist out there who mostly sing songs written by other people, but this wholesale sort of stereotyping is annoying. Especially since so many country stars do also write, either for themselves or for other folks. And more than a few rock stars don't.
One more dumb journalist grasping at an angle and making his argument patronizing and pointless. The unsung stars behind the hits: is there a story to be found there? Sure, but make it interesting instead of moronic and simplistic and write about the story there instead of stretching your current event over a lame stereotype.
He Writes the Songs, Out of the Spotlight - New York Times
Ummmm, and then I remember why I generally skip over their music reviews:
"The country music industry is really two industries, divided between the music publishing companies that sell songs and the record companies that sell singers to the public. It was a music publishing company, Acuff-Rose, that helped establish Nashville as the capital of country music. And while rock fans expect their singers to be songwriters, too, country fans have grown comfortable with the division of labor; some of the most respected country singers, like George Strait, pride themselves on being interpreters, not composers. "
Yeah, in country music, one person writes the songs, someone else does the singing unlike rock with its singer-songwriters. Uh, what? So yeah Nashville has profession songwriters who write songs for other people; since when did rock bands not have songwriters? Yeah, the back street boys and ashlee simpson write all their own music. What, you don't concider them very rock, more pop? Well, I feel the same way about much of the music they are talking about coming out of Nashvegas. It is just country pop, and you have a bunch of pretty singing faces getting pegged to sell the songs just like you have with so many friggin' rock/whatever bands. If they sing well and I like them as a performer, I really don't care, but you always have to have a special place for singer/songwriters. I just find it kind of stupid to set this out in an article like rock is all about the singer/songwriters and country is about putting words in pretty hillbillies' mouths to make a buck. How cute, they take pride in singing well, even if they can't write too. How fucking patronizing can you get? I don't mean to dis any artist out there who mostly sing songs written by other people, but this wholesale sort of stereotyping is annoying. Especially since so many country stars do also write, either for themselves or for other folks. And more than a few rock stars don't.
One more dumb journalist grasping at an angle and making his argument patronizing and pointless. The unsung stars behind the hits: is there a story to be found there? Sure, but make it interesting instead of moronic and simplistic and write about the story there instead of stretching your current event over a lame stereotype.
Thursday, November 03, 2005
"I'd like to see you try it!"
What are you doing Sunday night?
New York Gypsy Festival
If you know me very well, you know I'm a huge Gogol Bordello fan. Gogol Bordello is easily the best live band in the city. Before I had even gotten to New York, my brother was already preaching their gospel to me in preparation. They have been central to my NYC experience and one more chance to see them is welcome. We used to go dance to frontman Eugene Hutz's djing every friday night, first at the Ukrainian National Center and then at Luxx (r.i.p.). I haven't been a devoted acolyte to the party at Bulgarian Bar as it is just slightly further out of my normal path and on Thursday night, but still sneak down there from time to time to get a little fix.
I love going to see live music and am a person who likes to move my feet when I do, but I get frustrated by the crowds watching raucus music and standing there like stumps and when the crowd dampens the dancey vibe, its hard to keep your boogie going, even if the band is doing there part. Gogol Bordello doesn't have this problem. Their loyal fan base likes to stompy-dance and ain't shy about it. First note of the first song and the whole room is in motion. You had better wear strong shoes and be ready for a workout.
Gogol Bordello is at the top of a short list of bands/performers that I will go out of my way to see anytime they play in the city:
Gogol Bordello
Hidden Cameras
Old Crow Medicine Show
Kiki & Herb
They play; I go. Any venue; almost any price. The Scissor Sisters used to be on this list, but now that they have gotten big, they tend to either be out of my price range or sell out before I get around to buying a ticket. The last show of theirs I saw was at Bowery Ballroom just as they were breaking through and if their performances are to be temporarily relegated to memory, that was a good show to be remembered by til I can see them live again.
There are many other musicians who I would go see despite almost any hurdle, but who don't come often and/or are generally out of my price range to justify keeping them on a list: Dolly Parton, Willie Nelson, Raul Malo, the Indigo Girls, Emmylou Harris, Steve Earl, Robert Earl Keen Jr., Yakuza Dance Mob, Iron & Wine, etc.
Anyway, we were gonna have another hootenanny Sunday as part of a little baby step towards perhaps me and the boys starting our own little band, but I think perhaps the evening would be better spent being inspired than in practice. I'll see you at the Gypsy Music Festival at the Roxy Sunday night. I'll be the one with the curly moustache, right down front, dancing like a maniac. I wish my bro were still in town to fight the crowds with me, but hey, I can dance for both of us since he is busy in the down South representing at backwoods Sunday-night bootlegger live blues dance romps.
New York Gypsy Festival
If you know me very well, you know I'm a huge Gogol Bordello fan. Gogol Bordello is easily the best live band in the city. Before I had even gotten to New York, my brother was already preaching their gospel to me in preparation. They have been central to my NYC experience and one more chance to see them is welcome. We used to go dance to frontman Eugene Hutz's djing every friday night, first at the Ukrainian National Center and then at Luxx (r.i.p.). I haven't been a devoted acolyte to the party at Bulgarian Bar as it is just slightly further out of my normal path and on Thursday night, but still sneak down there from time to time to get a little fix.
I love going to see live music and am a person who likes to move my feet when I do, but I get frustrated by the crowds watching raucus music and standing there like stumps and when the crowd dampens the dancey vibe, its hard to keep your boogie going, even if the band is doing there part. Gogol Bordello doesn't have this problem. Their loyal fan base likes to stompy-dance and ain't shy about it. First note of the first song and the whole room is in motion. You had better wear strong shoes and be ready for a workout.
Gogol Bordello is at the top of a short list of bands/performers that I will go out of my way to see anytime they play in the city:
Gogol Bordello
Hidden Cameras
Old Crow Medicine Show
Kiki & Herb
They play; I go. Any venue; almost any price. The Scissor Sisters used to be on this list, but now that they have gotten big, they tend to either be out of my price range or sell out before I get around to buying a ticket. The last show of theirs I saw was at Bowery Ballroom just as they were breaking through and if their performances are to be temporarily relegated to memory, that was a good show to be remembered by til I can see them live again.
There are many other musicians who I would go see despite almost any hurdle, but who don't come often and/or are generally out of my price range to justify keeping them on a list: Dolly Parton, Willie Nelson, Raul Malo, the Indigo Girls, Emmylou Harris, Steve Earl, Robert Earl Keen Jr., Yakuza Dance Mob, Iron & Wine, etc.
Anyway, we were gonna have another hootenanny Sunday as part of a little baby step towards perhaps me and the boys starting our own little band, but I think perhaps the evening would be better spent being inspired than in practice. I'll see you at the Gypsy Music Festival at the Roxy Sunday night. I'll be the one with the curly moustache, right down front, dancing like a maniac. I wish my bro were still in town to fight the crowds with me, but hey, I can dance for both of us since he is busy in the down South representing at backwoods Sunday-night bootlegger live blues dance romps.
Tuesday, November 01, 2005
Don't you fucking dare...
Via Pandagon and Pam's House Blend I ended up reading this lovely little quote:
"'The whole point of the CD is to develop a heart for the homosexual,' said Bennett. 'While it is critical for churches to resist the effort to normalize homosexuality in our society, it is equally important for the church to reach out to these hurting, broken people.'"
Some more schmucks are selling their dignity for dollars, starting a radio show about ex-gay crap and have developed more products to sell to religious bigots who want to fix the people in their family/congregation/neighborhood who don't fit their butch/fem charicature of ideal humanity and drive more kids to suicide and self immolation. I won't swallow a drop of your stupid 'be nice about it and they will listen to you' bile and don't you dare say this is about churches reaching "out to these hurt broken people." I'm not interested in you being nice or arguing the Bible with you. I don't doubt for a second that you are being sincere in what you are doing (actually, I do, but I'll extend the benefit of the doubt for the time being) and I know exactly what kind of fucked up contortions a politically christian mindset will go through to try to grab hold of those first feelings of finally being mainstream and less of an anathema to the general populace and I know how the status quo enforcers will support and encourage your capitulation to their world view. I can imagine a gay person who can't get past the idea that being gay is nothing more than having sex with men might never develop anything more than a sexualized understanding of their homosexuality and see promiscuity as analogous to homosexuality rather than a part of how they themselves are approaching it and thus find retreat into a woman's arms something of a welcome escape. You may love your wife and you are married now and that is all good and well and I wouldn't begrudge you your hard won 'normalcy', but don't you fucking dare step out and end a sentence in the first half of which you iterate the importance of churches trying to make life worse, more difficult and more marginal for gay people with patronizingly calling us "hurt, broken people."
Yeah, asshole, there are a lot of hurt broken people out there and a lot of hurt, broken gay people, but do you ever stop and think about why gay folks tend to be more likely to commit suicide? Assholes like you trying to reinforce the idea that their innate feelings are evil and deranged and abbhorrant. You aren't going to fuck with those of us who made it out on the otherside of dealing with our demons and have made peace with the the-way-it-is-supposed-to-be shit we were force fed to internalize, but your crap hurts the folks who haven't made it and you are trying to make sure they don't. Because you didn't.
One more holy asshole out to make a buck off of other folks pain. Make sure you are getting a decent cut of the profit, because you better believe they are using your ex gay ass to make a dollar. Bigotry sells, and nothing makes it go down smoother than some turncoat willing to sell the idea that it is a noble cause. you deciding you want to spend your life with a woman and have a family, fine. You marketing that desicion as a device for mass marketing bigotry, go fuck yourself.
"'The whole point of the CD is to develop a heart for the homosexual,' said Bennett. 'While it is critical for churches to resist the effort to normalize homosexuality in our society, it is equally important for the church to reach out to these hurting, broken people.'"
Some more schmucks are selling their dignity for dollars, starting a radio show about ex-gay crap and have developed more products to sell to religious bigots who want to fix the people in their family/congregation/neighborhood who don't fit their butch/fem charicature of ideal humanity and drive more kids to suicide and self immolation. I won't swallow a drop of your stupid 'be nice about it and they will listen to you' bile and don't you dare say this is about churches reaching "out to these hurt broken people." I'm not interested in you being nice or arguing the Bible with you. I don't doubt for a second that you are being sincere in what you are doing (actually, I do, but I'll extend the benefit of the doubt for the time being) and I know exactly what kind of fucked up contortions a politically christian mindset will go through to try to grab hold of those first feelings of finally being mainstream and less of an anathema to the general populace and I know how the status quo enforcers will support and encourage your capitulation to their world view. I can imagine a gay person who can't get past the idea that being gay is nothing more than having sex with men might never develop anything more than a sexualized understanding of their homosexuality and see promiscuity as analogous to homosexuality rather than a part of how they themselves are approaching it and thus find retreat into a woman's arms something of a welcome escape. You may love your wife and you are married now and that is all good and well and I wouldn't begrudge you your hard won 'normalcy', but don't you fucking dare step out and end a sentence in the first half of which you iterate the importance of churches trying to make life worse, more difficult and more marginal for gay people with patronizingly calling us "hurt, broken people."
Yeah, asshole, there are a lot of hurt broken people out there and a lot of hurt, broken gay people, but do you ever stop and think about why gay folks tend to be more likely to commit suicide? Assholes like you trying to reinforce the idea that their innate feelings are evil and deranged and abbhorrant. You aren't going to fuck with those of us who made it out on the otherside of dealing with our demons and have made peace with the the-way-it-is-supposed-to-be shit we were force fed to internalize, but your crap hurts the folks who haven't made it and you are trying to make sure they don't. Because you didn't.
One more holy asshole out to make a buck off of other folks pain. Make sure you are getting a decent cut of the profit, because you better believe they are using your ex gay ass to make a dollar. Bigotry sells, and nothing makes it go down smoother than some turncoat willing to sell the idea that it is a noble cause. you deciding you want to spend your life with a woman and have a family, fine. You marketing that desicion as a device for mass marketing bigotry, go fuck yourself.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
