If you use X to insult someone, you aren't just insulting that person — you are insulting X. You are saying that X is something worthy of being insulted. It doesn't matter if you think they are a horrible person. If you don't think that X is something horrible about them, then insult the reasons you do think they are horrible.

I've seen far too many homophobic, racist, misogynistic, misandristic, transphobic, sizeist, anti-disabled and anti-semitic slurs "justified" by assertions that person being insulted doesn't personally deserve respect or that they fit some bad stereotype. Use something as an insult and you are saying that it is something worth of admonishment. Your words can say a lot more about what you think than you intend them to.

Yesterday morning, purpleglitter and I got up early to pick up the two cutest English budgies. The rusty cage they were in sucked and there were two cats there were being allowed batting at their tail feathers, but the had each other and to their former owner's credit, they had insisted they not be separated in their craigslist ad. They are so obviously bonded, they are snuggled up against each other more often then they are not. We are calling them Statler and Waldorf.


( +1 )

-----

Statler and Waldorf home safe and sound, I had to head out to my endocrinology appointment, which went well. It is obvious that my endocrinologist is still not entirely comfortable with me being off psychiatric medication and not in therapy, even though it has been years and I'm doing fine. At least at this point she no longer suggests I go back to either. She did, however, suggest I see my primary care provider. I won't, I don't trust my pcp anymore. However, my endo let slip the name of a primary care doctor popular who is popular with her trannie patients that I'm going to check out switching to.

-----

After they got done taking my blood, I went over to see Ila. She has been teaching me Telugu script, though the words we've been going over have been Sanskrit. This week I need to practice writing conjunct consonants. I think the script is beautiful and am grateful for the opportunity to attempt to learn it. Ila seems to enjoy showing it to me — which is good, otherwise she probably wouldn't.

I was in favor of the House resolution affirming that what happened to the Armenians in Turkey was genocide — however, I've changed my mind. The United States House of Representatives has never passed a resolution affirming that what happened to the Native Americans was a genocide. Awhile back congress did pass a resolution of apology in dealing with the Native American genocide, but that resolution carefully avoided using the term "genocide".

That congress would pass a resolution on the genocide of Armenians without dealing with the crimes perpetrated by the United States not too much further back, smacks of hypocricy. At this point I still support the Armenian genocide resolution, but only after a similar resolution is passed dealing with the genocide of the Native Americans. Perhaps, passing them at the same time would be even better. The outcry in Turkey would likely be blunted if we held ourselves to the same standards.

Many people misinterpret the "radical" in "radical feminism" as meaning "3. favoring drastic political, economic, or social reforms." This mistake is understandable, as that is a common usage of the term "radical" in political discourse.

Any radical feminist worth her salt will quickly point out the error and inform you that the definition of "radical" used in the term "radical feminism" is "1. of or going to the root or origin; fundamental." A synonym for "radical feminism" would therefore be "fundamentalist feminism". Interesting, eh?

Just for fun, I decided to look at the edits made from the United States Department of state using wikiscanner. I only looked at a fraction of the over 2,500 edits, but here are the ones I thought were interesting:

Laura Bush thinks Condi would be a great president

We're being invaded by Mexicans!!

"...the World Bank is one of the most highly-regarded financial institutions in the world..."

Tiawan is a pseudostate

"The statements about events in 2007 are clearly written by a Russian."

State Department predicts what issues will be contentious at the next Intergovernmental Conference of the European Union

The Department of State knows a lot about science and technology in China.

Somewhere in the world, humans can marry non-human animals

Delete – Who said the 2003 invasion of Iraq was illegal? No one said that

Delete – You can't say that the U.S. officials should have know that Bin Laden would turn his attention to the west after the Soviets were out of the way

Delete – Text on the United States Interests Section in Havana

Delete – A large chunk of the Missouri United States Senate election, 2006 article

Delete – Part of the discussion on the Agent Orange talk page

Perusing the headlines on Google News, I notice most media outlets avoiding the word "filibuster". I see phrases such as "procedurally blocked", "flexed senate rules that require a 60 vote supermajority" or "failed to pass a motion to limit debate". The media had no problem calling the democratic filibusters "filibusters" when the Republicans controlled the senate. What's the aversion to the term now? I strongly suspect that years of conservatives yelling "liberal media" has resulted a news media that is so afraid of saying anything seen as critical of the right for fear of being labeled "liberal".

Bush described his pardon of Scooter Libby as "fair and balanced". I wonder if Fox News will sue him for trademark infringement.

purpleglitter and I watched the House of Sand (Casa de Areia) last night. Fernanda Montenegro is one of those actors that can speak volumes without moving her lips, a face that says more than words can.

A simply amazing movie. The move has an intensity so subtle and built up so steadily and skillfully that it simply envelops you and takes you on a journey to a place so far away that it seems like another world, yet still very much of this Earth. It is a pocket, a bubble of time, and the stories the lie there. If I still maintained my "100 movies everyone should see" list, this would likely be in the top 10.

When I talk or write about my life, I attempt to choose my words very carefully. I attempt to choose my words carefully when I talk or write about anything, but even more so when I talk about my life. Often I am so careful, it ends up double-talk.

I'm concerned with accidentally misleading people, and my life is sufficiently complicated that I feel it would be very easy to do so. If I paint too rosy a picture or make it seem I'm doing better than I am and have progressed further than I have, I worry I'll receive undue praise or admiration or even jealousy. On the other hand – if I paint to bleak a picture, I may elicit worry, charity, or pity that is not warranted.

Of course, I am not perfect and neither is language a perfect tool. I do not always strike the balance correctly. I don’t believe anyone could. However, I endeavour to do the best I can. It is an obsession of mine, although I’m unsure whether or not it is a healthy one.

I've done salvia divinorum in the past. However, I'd only done 1X. Last night I tried 5X. Oh my, what a difference. The world ripped away in front of my eyes into interference patterns. Then diving down, I forgot everything. Complete dissolving of definition. No knowledge of the day to day world, no sense of self. I had to rebuild my perception of reality. Put everything back together. I had even lost the concept that everything was occurring in a three-dimensional locally-euclidean space, and couldn't figure out what kept me physically separate from anything. Even as I came out of the most intense part, everything kept warping together at the edges of my perception.

The strange putting together of things, defining of things, is the journey from the wholeness at the center. Without a sense of self, everything is one. There is no need for definition or distance. What is at the center is beyond definition. It is the All, the Ineffable. Words are boxes which cannot contain It. Even saying it is "beyond definition" misses the mark, as it is neither beyond or before.

I took the journey twice last night, the first time the speed of the journey panicked me on my return trip from There to Here. The second journey I was able to experience reconstruction from a much calmer place and was able to observe the experience more.

The salvia divinorum experience is not unlike experiences I've had in the past, however the pace at which salvia divinorum triggers these experiences is frighteningly fast: the most intense part is over in the first 5 minutes, and after 10 more it's completely worn off. The short duration along with the physical immobility during the deepest part may be why such a potent herb such as salvia has managed remained legal in most of the entheogenphobic United States (Missouri being the exception).

After the journey, I made a map...


We are waves emanating out from Unity. We perceive other waves as other selves.

At Unity we become all waves, all things. There is no self at Unity.

Between the everyday sphere of perception and Unity lies a domain where the waves are not united and a self still exists in some form, however the waves interfere with each other. This interference can show up in a variety of ways, including sensory phenomena (hallucinations, patterns, distortions, etc.) and/or disorganized thinking.

When viewing an autostereogram, focus of the eyes travels from normal focus to the adjusted focus where the 3D image is visible, the focus travels through an intermediate stage of visual clutter and interference. Traveling to Unity is like refocusing your eyes.

People don't like to discuss who was killed in the holocaust. People don't like to discuss the fact that a higher percentage of European Roma were killed than of Jews. So thorough was the extermination of the Roma people of Bohemia that the Bohemian Romani dialect went extinct. People don't like to discuss that the gas chambers were originally designed for and operated in mental hospitals as a way of getting rid of the most undesirable undesirables: the mentally ill. People don't like to discuss that gays, "social deviants", Jehovah's Witnesses, communists, Freemasons, and the disabled were all sent to the death camps.

When you include Soviet POWs, political dissidents, various Slavic peoples, and members of "non-Aryan" races and you include the Serbs kill by the Nazi-puppet regime in Croatia – Jewish deaths, while still numbering higher than any one other group, account for a third or less of the holocaust victims. 6 million is the most cited number of holocaust deaths and it is an horrific number on its own, but it only represents the number of Jews killed. The total number of holocaust victims will never be exactly known, detailed records simply don't exist. But when taking into account all the victims, that number is in the neighborhood of 18 to 20 million.

The crimes of the Nazis against the Jews should not be forgotten, nor should they be downplayed. However, the crimes of the Nazis were not only against Jews — they were crimes against humanity.

Is God benevolent or malevolent? Does God love us? Is God wrathful?

These questions are fitting to ask of some man with a flowing grey beard that lives in the sky, but they are unanswerable as to God as All.

God is not only the sky above and the ground below and all that dwells in those places. God is not only everything we can touch, God is more.

God is all creation all destruction. God is life and and God is death. God is the bleeding wound and the passionate kiss. God is the roar as well as the silence.

God is all beliefs and doubts. God not just the concept of heaven and hell, but the concept that there is an above and below. God is the ideas we think as well as the air we breathe.

God is all emotions. God is all love and all hate. God is all benevolence and all malevolence. God is all wrath and all forgiveness.

God is our mathematics and our law. Our fears and our courage. Our arts, our poetries, our languages and the metaphors behind them. The truth as well as the lie.

God is energy and matter. God is the motion of the falling rock as well as the rock that falls.

God is the Happening that is the Becoming. God is what was, will be, and has been. God is even that which is not, has not been, and will never be; if what is not, has not been, and will never be is but thought.

God is the All of Everything, the Universe of Universes. This is why there can be nothing greater than God. No threat needed, no coercion. There can be none greater than All that Is, because anything else is simply part of the Everything.

stolen from many:

What American accent do you have? Your Result: The Inland North You may think you speak "Standard English straight out of the dictionary" but when you step away from the Great Lakes you get asked annoying questions like "Are you from Wisconsin?" or "Are you from Chicago?" Chances are you call carbonated drinks "pop."
The South
The Midland
The Northeast
Philadelphia
The West
Boston
North Central
What American accent do you have?

I'm rethinking the rant I wrote about a month ago rejecting labeling myself "feminist". Perhaps it is not a label I should so hastily reject. This brings to mind the question: "Why is a feminist?".

Yes, I've heard the simplistic answer many times: "a feminist is someone who believes women are people too" or any variation on that theme. But that dissolves quickly when one starts talking issues. The abortion, the rabid warthog of issues, easily breaks the illusion. Many pro-choice feminists declare that pro-life feminism is an oxymoron, and that legal unqualified abortion is the only true path of feminism. This clearly is an affront to pro-life feminists, who will inevitably tell you that they believe unborn women are people too. Whether or not pro-life feminism is valid, this conflict alone shows that a simple definition is not going to suffice in defining what feminism is.

Perhaps asking "what is feminism" is a bit like asking "what is goth" on alt.gothic (is that still regularly asked?). Done over and over again, there is no real definition. It is a political orientation, the same way socialist and populist are. If it simply a political orientation, why should I reject it just because some fanatical organizations such as the MWMF claim it as well? Perhaps it is just a word, perhaps my gesture has no real meaning, but I might just call myself a feminist again.

The ferst time I was in Egypt a simplified speling epidemic had broeken out and the atmosfeer was electric with feeling enjenderd bi the subject. This was about fiev thouzand yeers ago. The simplifiers had rizen in revolt agenst the hieroglifics. An uncl of Cadmus hoo was out of a job had cum to Egypt and was trieing to introdoos the Phonecian alfabet and get it adopted insted of the hieroglifics. The Simplifiers wer fue, the Opozishun wer multituedinus. Amung the Simplifiers wer meny men of lerning and distinkshun, maenly litererry men and members of colej facultys, but all ranks and condishuns of men and all graeds of intelect, scolarship, and ignorans wer reprezented bi the Opozishun. Uncl Cadmus began an object leson, with chauk, on a cupl of blakbords. On wun of them he roet in hieroglifics: "At this time the King pozest of cavalry 214,580 men and 222,631 horses, of infantry 84,946 men, 37,264 transportaeshun carts, 321 elefants, and 28,954 camels." It fild the bord and reqierd twenty-six minits of time. Then he repeeted it on anuther blakbord in Italian script and Arabic noomerals and did it in wun minit and a qorter. Then he sed, "Mi argument is befor U. Wun of the objecshuns of the hieroglifics is that it takes the brietest puepil nien yeers to get the forms and thair meenings bi hart; it takes the rest of the naeshun all thair daes to accomplish it -- it is a lief sentens. If you wil renouns the hieroglifics and adopt riten werds insted, a tremendus advantej wil be gaend. Bi U? No, not bi U. U hav spent yur lievz in mastering the hieroglifics, and to U thae ar simpl, and the efect plezant to the ie, and eeven buetiful. But I apeel to U in behaf of jeneraeshuns yet to cum. Let yur suns and dauters adopt the riten werds and the alfabet, and thus saev milyons of yeers of uesles time and laebor." The Opozishun roez and combated his reezoning in the uezhual wae. Thoez peepl sed thae had long bin acustomd to hieroglifics and had deer and saecred memorys about them, that thae luvd to sit on a barrel under an umbrela in the brilyant sun of Egypt and spel out the rabits and eegls and aligaetors and sawteeth, and taek an our and a haf to the Lord's Prair, and weep with roemantic emoeshun at the thaut that thae had, at moest, but aet or ten yeers between themselvs and the graev for the enjoyment of this extasy.     —Mark Twain

I'm qikly becuming enamord with SoundSpel. Thair ar meny reezons for wonting to reform the speling of English, frum maeking it eezyer for maeking the tranzishun to English eezyer to lern for imigrants and uther non naetiv speekers to maeking literasy skils mor nacheral for naetiv speekers.

It wuud allso help solv a frustraeting ishoo I, and meny uthers, offen cum acros: thair ar meny werds I am qiet familyar with in print but hav no iedeea how to pronouns. Having red it meny tiems but never having herd it properly pronounst, I fiend it dificult to uez thees werds in oral conversaeshun. Speekers of langgwejes such as Spanish or German do not hav this problem and with a reformd sistem such as SoundSpel, English speekers wuudn't eether.

For sumwun uezd to the oeld speling sistem, SoundSpel is prity eezy to lern to reed but a task to lern to riet. Becauz of the readability of SoundSpel; laebels, siens, and public docuements cuud to be qikly chaenjd to SoundSpel without cauz much in the wae of confuezhun.

I am serten that no amount of nujing and cajoeling cuud sucseed in geting sum peepl to swich oever to SoundSpel. But, as pointed out bi Twain, this isn't for the curent jeneraeshun but of the jeneraeshuns yet to cum. The chaenj cuud be handld in a jeneraeshunal wae. Children cuud be taut to riet SoundSpel, but be instructed on how to reed the oelder spelings until thoes spelings becum obsoleet.

Taeking the leed in speling reform wuud be a huej advantej for the Uenieted Staets. It wuud esenshaly enshrien American English as standard. However, I do hav seerius douts that a cuntry that veeemently rezists adopting metric wuud undertaek sumthing as braezen as speling reform.

The American Literasy Counsil offers free sofftwair that wil automaticaly translaet standard English speling to SoundSpel (Microsoft Werd is reqierd). It is a bit bugy and I do fiend it anoiing that the proegram consistently drops the "e" frum "the", which isn't standard SoundSpel. The problem is eezily fixt with a serch and replaes. It maeks a fue uthere errors as wel, and eeven tho the rezults must stil be proofred it stil saevs time and increeses acuerasy for thoes nue to SoundSpel like mieself. In fact, I uezd it to prepare this poest. Perhaps I shuud practis rieting longger strings in SoundSpel.

Poll #844112
Open to: All, detailed results viewable to: All

Whut do U think of SoundSpel? (0 = "Pleez no! It herts, maek it stop!"; 10 = "Wun of th best iedeeas ever, we shuud all swich oever imeedyetly")

So, the planet vote was "hijacked". I thought having a near unanimous vote sounded a bit odd. I don't like the new definition and prefer the original proposal. Sure if the number of planets jumps to over 200 the word "planet" might lose some of it's "stature", but the definition is the most basic one and natural one. Science isn't about convenience or seemliness or popularity, it's about figuring out what is. The new complicated definition of "planet" only serves to complicate and confuse matters. It is not science, it's PR.