“Earth Hour” by Ross McKitrick – http://wp.me/p41nzV-1hg
Popping in to spread something of interest.
Posted by Foxfier on 2017/03/25
“Earth Hour” by Ross McKitrick – http://wp.me/p41nzV-1hg
Popping in to spread something of interest.
Posted by Foxfier on 2013/10/11
Mr. Pico wrote:
this is just stupid, how can you be legally dead when you’re not. really awful.
in the former times, when people were still idiots and believed in witches and god they wouldn’t even have done this.
i’m just glad most people who react here are really not very intelligent.
can someone please repeat this comment for me:
“he can still vote democrat” hahaha
“he doesn’t have to pay for Obamacare” hahaha, lucky him. he can just die in the street without insurance. the american way!
Friday, October 11, 2013 7:58:48 AM
Story (via Legal Insurrection and Aliens in This World, whose title sums it up much more accurately) is pretty basic, but the “oh, where shall we start?” aspect of Mr. (probably not Dana) Pico’s comment crystallizes why I so dislike Wikipedia and such; there’s so many folks willing to work to share their ignorance and bigotry.
Posted in Uncategorized | Comments Off on Mr. Pico wrote:…
Posted by Foxfier on 2013/05/05
Posted by Foxfier on 2013/03/27
a person who is utterly intolerant of any differing creed, belief, or opinion.
1590–1600; < Middle French ( Old French: derogatory name applied by the French to the Normans), perhaps < Old English bī God by God
Based on the Random House Dictionary, © Random House, Inc. 2013.
A movement to redefine a basic institution of civilization into a novel form, unsupported by traditional practices or even rational justifications for gov’t involvement. Supporters commit acts of vandalism, intimidation/assault (including by law enforcement), and violence up to and including attempted mass murder; those who oppose are met with bullying attempts to silence them and ban their employment.
All of those could also apply to the introduction of laws against blacks and whites marrying.
Actual voting results do not back up claims that the fight is over, and even if they did– Truth is not determined by a majority vote. Forcing people to call a thing by a nice name does not change the thing; as was pointed out in arguments yesterday, forcing kids in a class to call everyone a friend does not actually make them friends.
Posted in Uncategorized | Comments Off on So Who Are The Bigots?
Posted by Foxfier on 2013/02/11
This is very unusual– as Donald R. McClarey at the site I heard it from, The American Catholic, pointed out:
This would be the fifth time that a Pope has abdicated in the history of the Papacy, the first being Pope Gregory XII in 1415.
The decision comes after a “long period of prayer”
28 Feb he goes into a period of reflection and prayer, and then there will be a conclave to elect the new Pope. (No period of mourning, so it could be over in less than two weeks after the period of reflection ends.) This is taken pretty much directly from the video report at the link, which seems to be radio over some stock footage.
I hope that, whatever his health problems are, they won’t be bad enough to prevent him from spending time with his brother (also a retired priest) and his cats.
EWTN just posted their news article on the subject; the press conference is to be held “in a few minutes” and here is the text of his announcement:
I have convoked you to this Consistory, not only for the three canonizations, but also to communicate to you a decision of great importance for the life of the Church. After having repeatedly examined my conscience before God, I have come to the certainty that my strengths, due to an advanced age, are no longer suited to an adequate exercise of the Petrine ministry. I am well aware that this ministry, due to its essential spiritual nature, must be carried out not only with words and deeds, but no less with prayer and suffering. However, in today’s world, subject to so many rapid changes and shaken by questions of deep relevance for the life of faith, in order to govern the bark of Saint Peter and proclaim the Gospel, both strength of mind and body are necessary, strength which in the last few months, has deteriorated in me to the extent that I have had to recognize my incapacity to adequately fulfill the ministry entrusted to me. For this reason, and well aware of the seriousness of this act, with full freedom I declare that I renounce the ministry of Bishop of Rome, Successor of Saint Peter, entrusted to me by the Cardinals on 19 April 2005, in such a way, that as from 28 February 2013, at 20:00 hours, the See of Rome, the See of Saint Peter, will be vacant and a Conclave to elect the new Supreme Pontiff will have to be convoked by those whose competence it is.
Dear Brothers, I thank you most sincerely for all the love and work with which you have supported me in my ministry and I ask pardon for all my defects. And now, let us entrust the Holy Church to the care of Our Supreme Pastor, Our Lord Jesus Christ, and implore his holy Mother Mary, so that she may assist the Cardinal Fathers with her maternal solicitude, in electing a new Supreme Pontiff. With regard to myself, I wish to also devotedly serve the Holy Church of God in the future through a life dedicated to prayer.
From the Vatican, 10 February 2013
BENEDICTUS PP XVI
Sign me up as a “ditto” to what SuburbanBanshee says.
Posted by Foxfier on 2013/02/07
I’m fairly sure that anyone here is sufficiently ”plugged in” to current politics enough to have heard about House member Gabby Gifford’s recent plea for further gun restrictions. I’m not sure what your local media is like, but there’s a fair chance that there was even a mention of Sarah Palin or at least some sort of “incitement” behind that shooter’s attack. Given the body count, it’s not too surprising.
Also recently mentioned, though only in passing, is that the guy who shot up the Family Research Council in DC. Honestly, my main memory of that was being on a family trip and wondering why the heck somebody targeting based on “anti-gay bias” would have bags of Chick-fil-A. I can remember a few commentators suggesting that it was some sort of cartoonish attempt at “blending in”– an indication of just how crazy his view of those who disagree is or was. “Hey, Chick-fil-a is ‘anti-gay’ the same way that the FRC is– they don’t support redefining marriage to fit current pop culture appeals. The Family Research Council even denies a man and woman are functionally identical to two guys or two gals, of all the nerve! They’ll never notice me coming in and killing people if I have suitable fast food bags!” Not someone to take too seriously, even if he <I>did</i> have a gun.
I vaguely remember reading a blog about him choosing the target from the Southern Poverty Law Center, but I think that was from a site that collects examples of the SPLC faking and inflating “hate” for fundraising purposes. As I said, it didn’t stick in my mind, and I already don’t trust the SPLC. I assumed that they’d mentioned the FRC as being against homosexual marriage and the guy had gone from there.
Mostly, the “Giffords shooting” (the six dead victims get less press, since it seems likely she was the focus– if only because her public meeting gave that scum a crowd) sticks in one’s mind so much more because of the horrible range of people killed; from the little girl that was a 9/11 baby and the retired grandparent-types to the federal Judge and the first staffer to die in the line of duty, there was someone incredibly relatable to for everyone. Nobody died in the FRC attack, and Leonardo Johnson was able to overcome the shooter even after being shot in the arm. No fuss about heroism there, so it must have not been that bad of a shot, or it would’ve hit the news, right? (An aside: You might notice that I don’t name the murderers or attempted murderers. I don’t want to give them that level of recognition. The victims or heroes, though, are a different matter, and it took quite a bit of digging to find Mr. Johnson’s name wasn’t “A. Security Guard.”)
After today, I’m rather disabused of the notion that the Giffords attack was anything but more successful and more hyped: the attempted murderer bought the Chick-fil-A sandwiches to rub in the faces of his dying victims.
Insult to injury. Fatal injury. Not as cartoonish, now.
If not for Mollie Hemmingway’s post over at Ricochet, I wouldn’t have even thought about media bias. I’m Catholic– if that doesn’t make you realize how much the media screws up, what on earth will? It would be easier to find stories about the Church where reporters got it right than where they didn’t. I’m sure other traditional religion followers, or even folks who simply are part of uncommon fandoms or do something as “strange” as know more about a gun than what end the bullet comes out can relate…. The news screws things up, a lot.
I’m guessing folks will remember the “Blame Sarah Palin Because Her Website Had A Map With Gifford’s Area In A Target” to-do? If not, Mollie goes over it, with links. Although I want you to go read it, the short version is: even though Mrs. Palin didn’t say anything vaguely like ”go shoot this bad woman,” and there was no evidence that the Gifford’s shooter had even seen the map or Palin’s facebook page, it was worrying because it might affect an effect on “troubled” people.
Turns out that the FRC was ”mentioned” on the SPLC site– it was on a “hate map.” That’s where the thank-God ineffective attempted murderer got his target. From a hate map. They’re hateful, you see– so it’s good to target them.
Target a house seat: dangerous.
Make a “hate map” of those who oppose you politically on an issue: not worth mentioning. In fact, noticing that the attacker specifically stated he chose the target because of that “hate map” means that you are picking a fight.
As Mollie writes in response to a quote about that little detail “reigniting the culture wars that erupted around the shooting:”
Excuse me? What is that supposed to mean? I mean, you have an actual shooting in the culture war – an actual shooting – and you dismiss this aspect of the story as a “detail” that is “sure to reignite the culture wars”? The gall. The chutzpah. The …. hypocrisy of our media. The story doesn’t mention, by the way, that the shooter had a list with other groups whose names he got from the Southern Poverty Law Center.
Cherry on top: a guy goes in to kill people he hates, and has a list of other targets that he hates, and intends to assault the dying further with a symbol of yet another group he hates… and the SPLC doesn’t include that as a “hate incident.”
Posted by Foxfier on 2013/01/06
Over at the blog of the author, Sarah Hoyt, there’s a very good post.
I was going to try to use the theme to combine with some conversations from over at Ricochet.com, but then she went and put what I would’ve been pointing at into its own paragraph:
Both of these endeavors will change your perception and you’ll find yourself huffing at sitcoms you used to enjoy. This is good. Most of the politics are snuck into stuff like that (hence the directive that came down for more plots about healthcare in sitcoms and episodic dramas) and if you’re not aware of them they’ll insidiously color the way you see the world. It’s brilliant to sneak them into entertainment because if you complain, you’re a sour puss. But at this point they’re not even subtle, and you’ll start seeing them if you look: cardboard “conservative” characters who are anything but and who can’t defend their positions. “Dangerous” tea partiers. Liberating yourself through having indiscriminate sex and stuff. The government as a fount of goodness. It’s all there. And it’s there on purpose.
There’s more, some general stuff on how the polite refusal to inject politics into everything puts us at a bit of a disadvantage, and it’s quite worth reading. Now, on to my comments:
She’s right. My husband is a lot more easy going than I am, but we both can’t watch some shows because of the obvious agenda involved. Recognizing it isn’t just about paying attention or such– we had a rather long argument with my mother over a TV show that opened with a guy being shot inside his house by a SWAT team called in for a false hostage situation. (Before SWATting got big.) The show, and the woman who taught me to not trust the story that the news presented, held the SWAT team (personified by the leader) responsible. TrueBlue and I held those who certified that it was a hostage situation on an anonymous call from a random number as being responsible– there wasn’t any way for the guys who’d been told they were going in to a known hostage situation to know that the guy charging them with a kitchen knife was righteously defending his house. The guy risking their lives had to be at fault, while the paper-pushers that actually created the entire situation had to be blameless– not even faceless, but as natural a thing as the sun rising, and as unquestioned. Something goes wrong? It’s the fault of those uniformed Authority Figure guys. (Who all incidentally looked military.)
Stories set up the way we see the world.
Posted by Foxfier on 2012/11/08
I really, really wish I were joking about the title, but I’ve actually heard several folks seriously suggest this. (Hugh Hewitt show had a co-host/guest suggest “dropping the abortion issue,” for example—thankfully, Hugh pointed out that was…not a great idea.)
In a campaign where social issues were not focused on, where the SoCon vote was assumed, where the entire point would be “It’s the economy, stupid” and our turnout dropped hugely… we should really ditch these social conservatives entirely and try to peel off some Democrat voters. I was one of the folks that was saying at the beginning that we could not just assume we’d get our own base and that all we needed was to go after other groups, though I—like many others—thought that things were obviously bad enough that maybe the base could be taken for granted.
We tried the “shut up about social issues, focus on the financial short-term disaster.” Shock shock, it didn’t work. The “of course” votes didn’t show up, as best we can tell at this early of a time. Of course there was fraud and probably voter suppression, but we knew from the start that we’d have to win so big that they couldn’t cheat.
I know the thinking Libertarians believe that Social Issues hurt us, and if we’d just drop them it would improve—but they ignore that if you let people do all the stupid stuff they immaturely desire, they are going to want to be saved by someone else. (I’m ignoring the sub-group of thinking Libertarians that thinks having children at is a “personal choice” with no serious effect on the future of society, and mostly only something that ‘women want while they leach off men.’ I wish that last part was not a very slight paraphrase.) Of course, thinking Libertarians think social issues hurt because when thinking Libertarians recognize the cause and effect of libertine personal actions in creating demand for a leech-State, they become at least isolationist conservatives, rather than Libertarians. But I’m digressing.
So, we tried assuming that the rah rah Abortion!! stuff on Obama’s side would be enough to 1) get half our base out, and 2) get them to vote for Romney. Clearly, that was wrong.
We focused on the economy. I think we did pretty well on that, considering that Obama and Co could lie their tails off about what we actually said. (It’s a given, sadly.)
That makes me think that we maybe should’ve beat on the military side of things a bit more as well. I have friends who are still active duty who thought I was blowing smoke up their rears when I told them there was never a protest when the Ambassador was killed, when that was known just days after the attack. (Power Line linked an interview in a UK paper that included quotes from the guys who were opening a hospital with the Ambassador; they were on the phone when the attack started, and there was no mention of a protest, which would’ve been a pretty big deal.)
So, we need to actually make our own case, try to win the base before we try to peel folks off, and probably improve our communication networks. I’m going to work even harder on applying this in person—when someone says something incredibly untrue in person, I’m going to politely correct them. Yes, it’s uncomfortable and socially awkward, but that is what the other side’s tactics depend on. At some point, the drunk in the party has to be confronted. We’re there and past.
This is going to be especially hard on religious people. There are a lot of very nice people who…well… voted for Obama because that’s what “nice” people do.
Posted by Foxfier on 2012/10/15
Lately, I’ve been seeing a lot of folks lamenting how modern art (especially Modern Art) doesn’t have anything to compare to, oh, the great cathedrals of Europe—according to some, doesn’t even have a decently sized mural. Usually comes with a lot of talk of how soul-killing Walmart and their sort are, but not always.
Besides the obvious opportunity to plug folks like Tim Jones, I think they’re simply not looking right.
Depending on your taste in music, you might want to mute this. Depends on how closely you want to watch. Either way, maximize this video, and pay attention to things like the flow of the cloth vs fur vs hair, and even how the Asura’s ears move. Notice the background detail, from a game that was still in testing and development at the time. Notice the way that light makes a difference.
Guild Wars 2 isn’t a top-of-the-line game, although it is fairly new and well designed.
There’s a part of the game where players go around looking for "vistas"– when you reach the vista point, you activate it, and see… well:
The person that made this video had their settings up a bit high, you can tell from the slight hesitations in the visual flow, but look at the detail, and how lovely most of them are.
We still have artists, lots of them. And they’re being paid for their work. It’s just not displayed in the form of buildings, or windows, or even on walls; it’s more likely to show up on your computer’s wallpaper.
Posted by Foxfier on 2012/09/07
I’d like to know – if you blog for other reasons versus blogging intentionally to build a platform for your writing/your apostolate/your cat – and I am not saying that it’s bad to try to boost blog traffic:
1. If that’s not your primary focus, what enjoyment do you derive from blogging?
2. Do you consider yourself to be a “successful” blogger? In what sense?
3. If you could choose between having a post shared 500 times, or having one of your Internet Idols send you an email to say “I really enjoyed your post,” which would you choose?
From over at Darwin Catholic’s place, shared from a gal trying to figure out why we’d do this for no pay. *grin* Other authors might want to respond, as well; not sure if the guy has backlinks turned on.
1) Well, I find blogging is a social outlet. I’m much better at typing than I am at talking, and it’s much harder to browbeat me online when I can bring out facts and evidence from objective sources at a moment’s notice. It’s a place to say things worth saying, and that I just want to say.
2) I don’t think about it. I wish that I remembered to write more often, I wish that I could sway folks better, I wish that I thought of great lines that I think of days later, I wish that I could develop some of the posts that I think of. (Part of the addictive nature of Ricochet is that I can pop on for an instant, write a response, and leave.)
3) Definitely a nice email. I have had emails from online idols—or comments, or “hey, read this!” type links!—and I have had posts shared. One is pure pleasure, the other just makes it easier for trolls to find you.
Posted by Foxfier on 2012/08/16
Someone linked this site on facebook. It’s called “Hey Girl, it’s Paul Ryan.”
I have now spent… far too much time reading every single page. It’s lolcats, but dreamy-cute, not fluffy-cute, and with better grammar.
This MIGHT be a girl thing… but here’s one more:
Posted by Foxfier on 2012/07/27
That’s “fast” like “quick,” not “fast” like, well, “fasting.” I do go meatless, but that’s entirely beside the point. The idea is things to make when the weak week is ending and I’m longing for a stiff drink ready for the weekend. Maybe I’ll make a tradition of it, we’ll see.
Safeway has some lovely “party sized” dinners that I got because… well, they were about 25% off, and I’m lazy sleep deprived, and I love both lasagnas (five cheese and meat, respectively) and orange chicken. Grabbed the cannelloni because it sounded like something to try.
$7 for five to ten servings. Usually ten bucks plus tax. Easily two evening’s dinner for us with the toddlers, plus a generous packed lunch.
Cooking time is a bit on the low side—by which I mean you’ll want to set it for the low timer, check it, and then let it go to the high suggested cooking time.
The cannelloni was… er… well, TrueBlue says it didn’t taste right. It tasted like salsa made of green peppers mixed with basic pasta and a good white cannelloni sauce to me. Kept its form very well.
The cheese lasagna is WONDERFUL. How good is it? My husband willingly ate it when I wasn’t cooking only non-carne meals. This is the guy that complains there’s not enough meat in his steak and potatoes….
The meat lasagna is good; not great, but better than I could make, and probably less expensive. The meat seems to be rather spicy sausage, but not bad at all. (Note, this is not to be interpreted as “spicy” or “hot” by the measure of most folks; more along the lines of mild-to-medium salsa. Yes, I’m a wimp.)
Haven’t tried the Orange Chicken yet, we’ll see.
Posted by Foxfier on 2012/07/04
Don’t know about anybody else, but our plans consist of family, friends, food and fun.
From Kinkade Company’s facebook.
Posted in Uncategorized | Comments Off on God Bless
Posted by Foxfier on 2012/07/03
Thank you for many good years, and may He welcome you.
Posted in Uncategorized | Comments Off on RIP, Andy Griffith
Posted by Foxfier on 2012/06/20
In the theme of things coming to a head.
CNN: Obama Asserts Executive Privilege Over ‘Fast and Furious’ Document.
Their headline says “documents,” but their story says documents.
Bonus link: Donald has a better link and some discussion.