Oh gosh darn that liberal media

Sarah Palin was on the O'Reilly factor in what was billed as a "no holds barred interview. What happened was O'Reilly fed Palin talking points about how and why she was bad on the campaign, and how the liberal media was out to get her. You can watch the video or read the transcript at the link. Here are some dandies of the no holds barred style of O'Reilly:

O'REILLY: All right. The two signature moments that got you in trouble, with all due respect, governor, were the Gibson interview when he looked down at you with his nose — on the glasses on the nose and said:

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

CHARLES GIBSON, ABC NEWS: Do you agree with the Bush doctrine?

(END VIDEO CLIP)

O'REILLY: When I heard that I went, "What Bush doctrine?"

PALIN: Everybody said that. So did I.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

PALIN: In what respect, Charlie?

GIBSON: Well, what do you interpret it to be?

PALIN: His world view?

GIBSON: No, the Bush doctrine enunciated in September of 2002 before the Iraq war.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

O'REILLY: Do you think that Gibson did that to demean you, to make you look stupid?

PALIN: Those are the gotcha techniques that some in — what some people call mainstream, others call now the "lamestream" media, who want to participate in a tactic like that.

O'REILLY: But he's not like that. Gibson's not like that.

PALIN: Had he explained a little bit more the context of the questions he was asking, probably could have answered it.

As a high school senior I could have explained what was meant by the Bush Doctrine. But I love the way Palin's in ability to answer that question was not even discussed, merely, the whole exchange was framed as an example of pompous white news guy attempt to practice liberal sexism and demean a woman.

And this

O'REILLY: Now that was a signature moment there, and it hurt Gibson because a lot of women said that's not fair. Katie Couric's a different story. Now, Katie Couric asked you an easy question and you booted it, governor.

PALIN: I sure did.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

KATIE COURIC, CBS NEWS: What newspapers and magazines did you regularly read before you were tapped for this to stay informed and to understand the world?

PALIN: I've read most of them. Again, with a great appreciates for the press, for the media.

COURIC: Like what ones specifically? I'm curious.

PALIN: All of them.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

O'REILLY: Why did you boot it? I mean, if somebody asks what do you read? I say I read the, you know, New York Times, The Wall Street Journal, The Washington Post. I can reel them off in my sleep. You couldn't do it?

PALIN: Well, of course I could. Of course, I could.

O'REILLY: Why didn't you?

PALIN: It's ridiculous to suggest that or to say that I couldn't tell people what I read, because by that point already it was relatively early in that multi-segmented interview with Katie Couric, it was quite obvious that it was going to be a bit of an annoying interview with the badgering of the questions. It seemed to me that she didn't know anything about Alaska, about my job as governor, about my accomplishments as a mayor or a governor, my record. And a question like that though, yeah, I booted it. I screwed up. I should have been more patient and more gracious in my answer. It seemed to me that the question was more along the lines of do you read? How do you stay in touch with the real world?

O'REILLY: So you thought it was condescending. So that was your inexperience that led to that exchange with Couric. You were frustrated.

PALIN: It was my inexperience in having to deal with a badgering, condescending line of questioning.

O'REILLY: Right.

PALIN: It had no reflection at all on my inexperience in terms of administrative record or accomplishment…

O'REILLY: No, it's just handling the media.

PALIN: …or vision for America. Yeah, and, you know what? So what? So I wasn't…

O'REILLY: It hurt you though.

PALIN: …so I wasn't doing the right thing to ingratiate myself with liberal media personalities to make them like me. So what? I think if most normal Americans were put in the same position that I was there, they'd probably look at her and have that proverbial eye roll and say, "Are you kidding me?"

Yep, Katie Couric asking a wannabe leader of the one remaining super power what she reads and where she gets her information from is not a legitimate question, but instead another example of liberal sexism on the part of the media, meant to be "badgering and condescending," and meant to imply that Palin does not, in fact read.

Palin is clearly a nut job, who builds elaborate conspiracies to blame others for her failures. Bill O'Reilly, well, he never had any creditability to begin with.

NASA dispels 2012 hoax

Is anyone else disturbed that this is necessary?

The Truth about 2012 from NASA Lunar Science Institute on Vimeo.

So liberal I want to perform abortions while getting gay married to Hugo Chavez

That is what it says my political views are on my facebook page. My facebook page also says in various places that:

1) My interest is in "being apart of the liberal atheist communist agenda to destroy America and eat babies"

and 2) I say in the about me section, "Sorry, cannot talk, I am going out to burn some american flags while marrying gay couples and converting your children to paganism during a mariachi party for illegal immigrants."

All these are intended to be humorous statements that describe my political positions, in some ways, ridicule those that would deny what I consider to be basic rights to others, and poke fun at the extreme conservative statement that all liberals want to do is "perform abortions" get "gay married" and (as a feminist) that all feminist want to do is practice witchcraft. I should also say, before I continue, that there are a few fuck and shits on my facebook page. Though, over the past two weeks, I used term fuck in my facebook status update exactly twice, and in both cases, it was used as an exclamation, not the action (if that makes a difference). I say all this, because I got an email from a professor about my facebook page. I inquired about the duties of an internship at an organization in town. I guess they thought that meant I was applying for the internship. Here are highlights of that email:

I wanted to let you know about a concern that one of our alumni forwarded to me about your Facebook. You had applied for an internship at [organization removed], and were not brought in for an interview because of the comments about abortion and being a liberal on your Facebook page...Your Facebook entry was thought to be immature, objectionable, and in poor taste. They questioned your judgment and fit for the position as a result

I am not in the slightest bit mad or upset at my professor for the comments. Because I know that the comments did not originate from the professor. I am upset with the organization, because, while I do afford the organization free speech rights, I just wish they would do the same for me. Anyway, here are some highlights of my response.

I might be extremely immature and or naive to think this, but I do not think any employer or organization has the right to violate my first amendment rights to free speech. I think it is extremely dangerous when we allow private, and public, employers to become defacto rule makers for basic rights in this country. I realize this can be a more complicated issue than the black and white image that my comment just expressed. My basic concern is we could have a society in which different people have a different levels of freedom based upon the decisions of private, unaccountable organizations. Now, you could say that organizations have some right to ensure that members of the organization represent the organization in an agreeable way to the organization. And, while an employee is "on the clock" that is something I would agree with. ie, I would not expect to be able to say, as a representative of the organization, my personal views. But I would only get paid to represent the organization 8 hours of the day. The rest of the day should be mine. And the organization should not feel it has the right to censor my private views (even if I do make my private views public, which is an action I consider to be absolutely vital to the maintenance of a well-functioning democracy).

I do have a fairly extensive web presence, because I like to exercise my freedom of speech in a public forum. And frankly, from where I am at right now, I consider it to be shameful on [organization removed] part to think they have the right to control what any intern or paid employee for their organization can say, or how they express themselves, when they are not on duty at their job. They questioned my judgment and fitness for the position? Well, I question their judgment and fitness to be a community leader in a democratic society.

Of course, this is just my political and social justice opinions right now, as an idealistic, young, naive 24 year old. When I need to ramp up my search in a few month for an internship, and in a year or so for a job, my opinions may change...and quickly :)

After another email from the professor, I sent a second response. Here are more highlights:

I also appreciate your thoughtful response. I am aware that society is not set up the way I wish it to be. While traditionally such actions by employers are not seen as violating our free speech rights, I do disagree. If I may call upon Thomas Jefferson here, who said that economic freedoms have to come before political freedom. That is, if a person is not economically free, then they cannot be politically free. Someone will always have some control over them. And while, under some definitions, employers are not violating free speech rights by not hiring those who they find to have engaged in objectionable speech, I think that definition of what constitutes free speech violations is not reflective of reality. Because, in our society, we are, in all practical purposes, dependent on our jobs for our survival. And because survival is one of the most important things to 99.9 percent of the people I think, that gives employers an enormous power to mold and shape the way we behave and the things we do. And I question whether or not that is in the best interests of our society as a whole. Should we structure our society so that employers can effectively become the arbiters of what is good speech and what is bad speech? I do not think we should. I think it is extremely damaging to our collective advancement as a society when we allow such organizations and institutions the authority to regulate what we do in our private time. And in essence, if we are dependent upon the employers for our survival, and we do not enact any laws defining what employers can and cannot hire for, that is what we are doing. In this country, therefore, we have set up a system in which the federal government sets a bar on the maximum level of freedom permissible, but individual companies and institutions are able to regulate the speech and affairs of its members. We have a society in which where you work determines your level of freedom, not the collective agreement the citizens.

And this is where Thomas Jefferson comes in. To increase productivity, we have a society in which the vast majority of its members are not, in any true sense, economically free. I am depended upon others for my economic livelihood. This is not in of itself a bad thing. Such arrangements I think give us huge societal benefits. I doubt I could get a car for 20,000 dollars if everyone just made them by themselves, and not in a huge factory with a single authority regulating production. Given the fact that we do not have economic freedom, I do not think that means we should have to sacrifice our political freedoms. Of course, Thomas Jefferson said that we cannot be politically free without being economically free, and his words I think are true, as employers try to clamp down on their employees personal speech. This is not something I think they have the right to do, and I think it exposes a moral flaw in the character of the leaders of those organizations.

So, I open this up to anyone that feels like discussing it. Is the internet a vital forum for the free expression of ideas in a democratic society? Is its function it plays in society so important that our ability to speak on that forum should not be compromised? Or, does the internet, because of the public nature of it and the permanence of it, mean that we as a society should both censor ourselves on it, and allow companies to investigate their employee's speech on it? If I say something on the internet, do you think that the business I work for endorses that speech? And finally, should we afford organizations a greater right in our society to protect their image than the rights we afford individuals to free speech? Regardless of where the line is, while I did enjoy writing the exaggerated and firebombing posts "Japan, you suck. You are an immoral shit. Your country is barbaric" and "Florida you suck. You are an immoral shit. Your laws are barbaric" maybe I will refrain from that level of hyperbole in the future. Because in those posts, while I continue to be deeply offended by the actions of those governments, the language itself served no additional political purpose, other than to be inflammatory, because that is fun sometimes.

Let me google that for you

This is the greatest use of the internet either. At the Atheist Experience blog, Kazim put up a post of an email conversation he had with a creationist. In it, the emailer asked how fossils are formed. As a response, Kazim said:

I'm sure you're fully capable of doing your own research. But here, let me google that for you.

The joke, and the thing that is the greatest use of the internet ever is at that link. Click on it, get a laugh, and thank Kazim for being aware of such greatness.

Photo tour of my new hardwood floors

Since purchasing the home me and my girlfriend currently live in, my parents have come up every now and then to do improvements to the house. The first and biggest need we identified in the house was to install hardwood floors. Well, Friday we finished putting hardwood floors in the last room in the house (excluding the kitchen, which has tile). Here is a photo tour:

The first thing you may think is...damn, that looks like a small room. Well, it is. That is a queen size bed that Sabrina and I sleep on. The room itself is a little over 9 feet by a little over 10 feet. But, I have always slept in the smallest room in the house and that is where I feel most comfortable. It is a little cramped, but I am not doing jumping jacks in my room. I am on the computer, or lying down. That is all I need to do in there.

This is the room with everything out, and all the carpet ripped out.

So, this took about 36 hours to complete. And during that time, all the stuff had to be moved out of the bedroom, and was scattered all throughout the rest of the house. It was a complete mess. We did not have a place to sit for that period of time.

Next, we had to lay down tar paper, to ensure moisture will not soak into the floor and destroy it.

We started in the closet. At about noon on Thursday. And we stayed in the closet until about 5:00pm that night. It took FOREVER! Oh, and that is me.

Es mi mama. Oh, y Lou Dobbs es un pinche cavron.

Progress!

That is me again. I was in this position for most of the weekend.

Every now and then, we would not hit the nail gun hard enough, and a nail would stick out from the board. So, to solve that problem and not damage the floor board, my dad would have to cut off the nail.

DONE!!!!

Ezri, checking out the new floors, and wondering what all the noise was.

The closet shelfing units we also built (we built those at an earlier time). And my clothes.

Moving stuff back in.

And finished!!!!!

Also, this week, Ida came through. Here is some images of the back yard!

Wasting time

The internet is great. But it can also be distracting for a guy like me, especially when I should be research a paper (which is what I was doing, but I thought I would check my mail, then I saw an interesting article...then another...then another...). I saw this, which I actually think is mostly a bit of old news. It has the data that on online dating sites, being an atheist makes you more likely to get a response than any other religious membership. I think this is probably because, in a very religious society, when an atheist reaches out to another atheist, they are going to talk, because so few people think like us. Anyway, that is not the primary purpose of this post. In that same article, I saw this bit of reality altering discovery hidden at the very end of the article:

-- Zodiac signs have no bearing on compatibility.

Duh!

Lou Dobbs is outta here!

Lou Dobbs resigned last Wednesday from his tv show on CNN. Lots are speculating that he will either enter politics, join a think-tank, or get a show on FOX News or FOX Business, a network that is 1) more in line with his ideological views and 2) a network that has a history of hiring firebrand ideological driven pundits completely devoid from reality and unconcerned with the truth.

I realize I am a few days late in this news. I have been installing hardwood floors in my bedroom, and working in the yard. Pictures upcoming in a few days. But I just wanted to get a word in and say Lou Dobbs, you are a complete bigot, and I hope the door hits you on the way out. Asshat.

FAIR did a great recap of his "news" "reporting" over the past 7 years, which was not so much Dobbs presenting any information, as him frothing at the mouth over the idea that a person of a different skin color might get in line behind him at McDonald's.