<$BlogRSDUrl$>

You are now entering the realm of semi-intelligent thoughts. Keep your mind open and your mouth shut!

Saturday, October 11, 2003

Good Drum Link 

Hey, sorry I'm not posting very much interesting stuff this weekend, but I'm a little short on subject matter. Also, there's still plenty of archived stuff to read, so you can always go there. Until I think of something else to write about, I'll post another link. This goes to the website of Vic Firth, the company that makes the drumsticks I've been using for the past 6 years. If you go to their "Media Vault," you'll find a bunch of drum solo and drum corps videos for your viewing pleasure. I've been watching a lot of them lately, mostly because I've been away from my drumset for almost 2 months and I'm suffering from withdrawal symptoms (remember; drumming isn't a skill, it's an addiction). Anyway, check those out. Even non-drummers can appreciate drum solos.

Vic Firth

Friday, October 10, 2003

Cool Game 

Play Curveball! It's incredibly addictive! Good luck getting past level 8. Oh, and I think there's a blog here too.

Curveball

New Idea 

This is just a temporary post, but I want to quickly put up an update about one of my original ideas. When I started, I posted some entries from my "Book of Semi-Intelligent Thoughts," the journal-type thing that inspired this site. I also said that I would be going in depth with some of the entries and explaining their full meaning. I think that since the news is getting a little slow (although that may be changing soon), I should do that over the weekend. I don't know which one to write about, but I probably will pick a couple. Also, George Hill just sold his BlogShares of SIT, but since it's not real money, I don't really care that much. Later.

More On Rush, Liberal Racism, and "Diversity" 

In case you haven't noticed, I've been trying to link to more stories lately. In this case, I found a good piece about the Rush Limbaugh incident. Personally, I don't think Rush should've said what he did, because deep down he knew people would take it the wrong way, but that doesn't necessarily mean he wasn't on to something. Also, being a Syracuse student and everything, I don't think he should've implied that McNabb is underqualified (even though he was actually criticizing the media), but there was still some truth in his statements. This letter I'm linking to has some great content about liberal racism and false diversity, and it fits very well with the rants I've been writing for the past couple days. Enjoy.

*UPDATE*
I've decided to change this post a little. It seems there's a lot going on with issues of race in the world right now, so I'm going to link to every story about it that's interesting (just for today). The Rush story is first, but I'm putting some more under it. Racism is the "hot issue" on SIT this week anyway.

An Open Leter to ESPN on Rush Limbaugh

Racial Accusations Backfire on Democrats (not the actual title of the article)

Still Nothing Happening 

Only 8 hits today. That's a bit less, but still good considering how new SIT is. I want to post a couple things before I end for the day. I've been reading through the posts, and I realized that I use the phrases "by the way" and "anyway" in just about every one. I really need to think of something else. Actually, that's all I wanted to say. Goodnight.

Thursday, October 09, 2003

Commentary On Invented Words 

Sorry, I couldn't come up with a better title. Anyway, I'm really bored right now, so I decided to write about something I've been pondering recently. In this country, we have a tendency to use words the wrong way. Everybody knows this, of course, but we say certain things as if they actually sound right. There are two specific examples I have in mind. First of all, why do we add the suffix "-aholic" to certain words (workaholic, chocaholic, shopaholic, etc.)? It sounds good at first, but what people don't realize is that it makes no sense. The word "alcoholic" is just "alcohol" plus "-ic." That's it. If we wanted to do this the right way, we would say "workic," "chocolatic," and "shopic," but those would sound really stupid. I realize that the way we do it is just a play on the whole alcoholic thing, but we shouldn't add part of the word "alcohol" to every single addiction. The second thing that bothers me is adding the word "gate" to every scandal. Dubya supposedly lies, and it's called "Uraniumgate." I just saw Newsmax call the Arnold thing "Gropegate." Also, I'm from Pittsburgh, so I witnessed "Sausagegate" this summer with Randall Simon. Why do we do this? The original Watergate scandal was named that way because it happened at the Watergate hotel. It wasn't a scandal about water, it was a scandal at a hotel called Watergate. Despite this fact, we still feel the need to add a gate to every scandal that happens in this country. As long as I'm writing about misuse of words, I want to mention that the way we use the word "homophobia" is also wrong. "Homo" means the same, "phobia" means fear. Homophobia=fear of things that are alike. We should say "homosexualphobia," but that wouldn't fit on a standard picket sign, and "homosexualphobe" would take too long to yell at passing social conservatives. That's my language rant for today. By the way, just so I don't seem elitist, I'm guilty of two of these word invention techniques (I used the word "Rushgate" a couple days ago on SIT, and I videotaped myself playing a drum solo over the summer and called it "Drumaholic"). Once again, I'm out of material. I really think the entire world slowed down today. I'm not sure why, but nothing on the 'net has been very interesting. Before I start to ramble (again), I'm going to stop. Remember, sign the petition! The link is on the right under "Michael Moore." It's for the good of honest filmmakers everywhere. Trust me.

Another Slow Day 

Okay, it turns out that when I don't have marching band practice in the evening, I get really bored. Unfortunately, I have nothing to write about, so I'll just mention a few more random things. First of all, I've only gotten 5 hits today. I'm not complaining or anything, since any hit is good, but that just seems like a change in the pattern. Also, the blogoshpere in general seems to be a little dull today. Everyone must be exhausted from that whole recall thing. Well, I think I'm out of material already. To tell you the truth, I just wanted to post something else. I usually get a couple hits when I publish. I know it's a little sneaky, but I need to bring people here somehow. Hopefully, I'll get something to write about before the end of the day. Now that I think about it, I haven't really looked at the New York Times yet. Maybe they've got something I could rant about. We'll have to wait and see.

You Might Be a Leftist If... 

This is hilarious! You should read it immediately.

SIT: Two Weeks of Blogification 

I just finished taking a philosophy quiz on the moral theories of Kant, so my brain hurts a little, but I'm blogging once again and celebrating SIT's 2 week anniversary (don't worry, I'll stop this anniversary crap in about a month). There's a lot to talk about concerning the blog today, and I haven't checked the news yet, so there may or may not be a rant on the way. Apparently there's no Daily Orange today, so I can't criticize the liberal editing staff, but I'm going to check some news sites soon. Until then, I'll write about the blog. As I said yesterday, SIT is now available in Google search results, and I've already gotten 2 hits that way. I also have a piece of slightly more interesting news to report. I checked my referrer log and clicked on an unfamiliar URL, and I found out that three people have invested in SIT on BlogShares. It's worth $1,309.53, which seems pretty good. Personally, I'm not interested in the fantasy blog stock market, but it's good to know that people are including my site. As long as I'm part of this, however, I might as well try and increase my value, which means I need to add more outgoing links and generate more hits. If you're interested in buying stocks, it's $1.34 per share. Go here to check it out. Also, if you are Harry Kingsley, David Fletcher, or George Hill, thanks for the publicity. That's about it for now. I hope I can get a bigger audience from the increased exposure of the blog, although I still don't expect to be famous or anything. As far as I know, and as far as my stats tracker tells me, I only have 1 or 2 regular readers right now, but any random link could result in a daily view, so I'm optimistic about that. Thanks for coming to SIT, and I will return later.

SIGN THE PETITION TO REVOKE MICHAEL MOORE'S OSCAR!

End of the Day Status Report 

Hey, I've got two quizzes tomorrow, I have to procrastinate. Anyway, I decided to end today with a brief status report. First of all, I may have an interesting situation. My stats tracker tells me that someone else at Syracuse got to the blog from Google. I kinda hope it's nobody I know. Unless they agree with me. In that case, I could start recruiting minions (insert sinister laugh here). In any case, Google has given me two hits already, and the counter is now at 64. Incidentally, I realize I may be giving away a lot of information about who comes here, but I made the tracker private, so I'm actually hiding information. On some sites, you can just click on the hit counter and look at the data for every visitor to the page, but I opted to keep that information to myself. That's all for today's Semi-Intelligent Thoughts. I expect to have some interesting times in the next couple of days, since Google should be sending me some unsuspecting victims...I mean viewers. Also, I'm going to be adding links to more conservative blogs and music sites over the weekend, and I already mentioned that I'll be blogging like crazy during the next few days. Hey, it's Fall Break, and I want to enjoy it by flaunting the fact that I have absolutely no social life. I've run out of things to type, so I should probably do my Spanish homework. Also, I have to keep an eye on my roommate and make sure he doesn't try to kill himself over the Yankees' loss. So, until next time, blog safely, and revoke Michael Moore's Oscar (on a final note, I'm going to be watching "Bowling for Columbine" for my writing class in a couple weeks. Maybe I can give it a verbal fisking.)

*One more note*: It has come to my attention that more people have contributed comments to my joke site, "Evil Monkeys," than they have to SIT. And the monkey site only has 18 hits! Maybe I should reconsider which blog is more important.....or not. I just got an idea. As long as I do have comments available, I'll ask people a question. Do you want me to link to "Evil Monkeys?" I think it's dumb, and it may cause you to question my sanity (as if you haven't done that already), but it is funny in a certain way. I haven't updated in a couple days, but if you want me to link to it and add some more monkey fights over the weekend, let me know. People seem to be enjoying the pure stupidity of it.

Wednesday, October 08, 2003

SIT Has Been Googlified 

I just did a test, and I'm happy to report that Semi-Intelligent Thoughts now appears in Google search results. Just thought you'd like to know that. I'm not sure what keywords go here, since I searched with the title of the site, but I am positive that SIT is at least listed. By the way, I have a long weekend coming up. After my philosophy class ends at 2:00 tomorrow, I have no more classes until Monday, and I'm pretty sure there's no band practice tomorrow night. That means there will probably be a ton of posts this weekend. Unfortunately, I have other things to do right now, so I may not post anything else tonight. Sign the petition to revoke Michael Moore's Oscar if you haven't already.

*UPDATE*
The Internet is really fast. I already got a hit that was referred from Google. Apparently someone searched for "intelligent thoughts," and my blog was in the top 10 (#7, to be precise). That's pretty fast considering I've only been doing this for two weeks. I just wish I had more time. Also, the person that came from Google MAY have signed the petition to revoke the Oscar. I'm not positive about that.

More Liberal Racism 

Unfortunately, I managed to procrastinate to the point of no return, so I have very little time to blog today, but I want to quickly cover another example of racism from liberals that I heard today. My sociology professor covered racial discrimination and similar topics today, and he eventually got around to talking about affirmative action. Right away, it was obvious that he supports it, because he talked about how many people it has helped and how much more diverse the work force is. Those are obviously good things, but people like him always seem to ignore the fact that they have been manufactured and aren't necessarily the result of a change in society. As I said yesterday, jobs and admissions are meant for people who deserve them, no matter what color or nationality they happen to be. The professor, of course, decided to give his position on this view, and he introduced it with the question, "Why can't there be reverse racism?" This struck me as a bit odd, because he's already decided that there is no reverse racism, despite the fact that certain people are still singled out because of their race. According to his view, affirmative action is not racist because the white male majority (also known as the evil white patriarchy) is still making the policies. Therefore, he says that we have "invented" reverse racism to mask our own racist views. I really hope I'll get the chance to write about this for his class, because I could really get into a topic like this, but since I have a blog, I'll try out an argument now. In my view, affirmative action is racist even though white males are making the policy. The problem in my professor's view is that he (by his own admission) views racism as one race dominating another. That premise results in the belief that racism can only be perpetrated by the majority, in this case white males. I find that to be deeply flawed. Racism by domination is only one form. In reality, racism happens whenever a person considers race to be the most important part of an individual's identity regardless of character, reputation, personality, skills, etc. In fact, according to my "Language Master" (a computerized dictionary), racism is simply discrimination based on race OR based on the belief that one race is superior to another. In the case of affirmative action, the racism lies in the fact that decisions are made based solely on race. That's racist. And I also disagree with my professor's view that white people are not racist when they implement affirmative action policies. Even though they put themselves at a disadvantage by doing this, the fact remains that they are discriminating based on race and ethnicity. I call that "360 degrees of racism." Even if a person's racism is disadvantageous, it is still racist. My philosophy professor actually gave a good example of this. Back in the days of slavery, if a slave accepted the belief that he was inferior, he was called an "Uncle Tom." African-Americans who are believed to treat whites as their superiors are still called this today. This is a case of 360 degree racism. Even though the person views himself as inferior, he still takes a racist position. That's my opinion. Any time you treat race as the most important factor, you are a racist. It's as simple as that. I think I should probably do some actual work now, so I'll sign off. By the way, I think Arnold Schwarzenegger's English is actually getting worse, but maybe that's just me.

Tuesday, October 07, 2003

Movin' On Up... 

50! The counter's at 50! That's pretty good for 3 days, I'd say.

I Forgot Something 

By the way, will anyone else not be surprised when dozens of women accuse President Bush of groping them next Fall? I bet Hillary Clinton will be one of them.

College is Still Liberal (set aside a decent amount of time to read this) 

I have a great rant for today (but it's REEEEEAAAAALLLLY long, so don't say I didn't warn you). I was sitting outside the auditorium and waiting for my Communications lecture to begin, and I decided to actually read the chapter that we were going to be learning about. Well, as it turns out, the very first page made me so angry that I decided to write about it on SIT. I can't write it verbatim because that might violate some copyright law, but I can post a summary of what the intro to the "Legal Controls and Freedom of Expression" chapter says. It begins by talking about September 11 and describes the battle of free speech that followed.

If I can briefly quote (again, I'm not sure about the laws, but I'll credit the book at the end), it says "...the normal conditions of freedom of speech and press became a casualty of chest-thumping patriotism." Do you hear that? It's the sound of a brainwashed liberal idiot banging the keys of his computer until something anti-Bush comes out. Kinda like that "infinite monkeys with infinite typewriters" thing. If you give a liberal a computer and a deadline, he will write something that bashes President Bush.

The book then talks about three journalists that were fired for criticizing Bush after 9/11, and it uses Bill Maher's infamous "the terrorists were brave because they died for their cause, but Bush is a coward because he uses missiles" comment and the subsequent criticism of Maher as an example of "attacks on dissenting views." What? He said something idiotic and was criticized for it. Why is that a restriction of free speech? In any case, I find it ironic that a guy who calls himself "politically incorrect" constantly does the politically correct thing, which is, in this case, criticizing the president. Don't act surprised at that. Everyone knows political correctness is a tool of the left.

And then, of course, the book quotes a journalist from the San Antonio Express-News, who writes, "Somebody pinch me. I'm beginning to think that this is 1954 and that Sen. Joe McCarthy is alive and well and running roughshod over the Bill of Rights." That's asinine (I like that word). If people criticize you, it doesn't mean they're taking away your First Amendment rights. I don't remember seeing anything in the Bill of Rights about freedom to say whatever you want without fear of criticism.

In any case, if you criticize the government, you've basically given everyone else the right to criticize you. Michael Moore, Sean Penn, Martin Sheen, and a ton of other people need to realize this. If you criticize, you will be criticized back. That's called democracy. If you don't like people disagreeing with you, then SHUT THE F**K UP! That's the best solution I can think of. I'm not even close to being done with this rant, by the way.

The best part of this intro is the picture that accompanies it. On one page, there is a big photo of John Ashcroft with one of those topless statues behind him (I just thought I would mention that). The caption on the next page says, "On previous page: U.S. Attorney General John Ashcroft, who has restricted many civil liberties in response to the September 11 attacks." Do you people ever actually pay attention to the news, or do you just go to your little conspiracy theory sites and listen to people calling Ashcroft a fascist? Since when is John Ashcroft guilty of "restricting civil liberties?" Name one example, and I'll give you the contents of the Box of Mystery. OOOOOOOOO! What could it be?

That was dumb. I apologize. Seriously though, accusing Ashcroft of restricting civil liberties is not a good way to start off the chapter. In any case, this was, without a doubt, the most blatantly biased thing I have ever read in a textbook. Ever. In my 18 years of life, I have never seen any so-called "educational material" that's so obviously left-wing. What I find ironic about this whole thing is the whole "Rushgate (good word, isn't it?)" thing going on right now. Rush Limbaugh said something on the air that could be interpreted as racist, so he was forced to resign.

Interesting. So, if Bill Maher calls the president of the United States a coward, he's exercising his First Amendment rights, but if Rush Limbaugh says something that SOUNDS-repeat-SOUNDS racist, he's a big fat idiot and has to resign. I want you to think about that for a second. Don't say or do anything. Just think. Maher=hero, Limbaugh=racist. Can anyone tell me what's wrong with that?

I'm not going to write about this anymore, because I'm on the verge of ripping that textbook to shreds. This doesn't end with the textbook though. We talked about the whole "patriotism" thing in class, and the professor (who is actually moderate in his political views, if you can believe that) asked if questioning the government could be considered unpatriotic. One girl decided to take the typical moonbat position, and she said something like, "it's our duty to question the government if they do something wrong. We're just as patriotic for protesting the war as we are for agreeing with it."

Now, she actually said something dumber, but I decided to paraphrase it so it would be intelligible to right-wing nuts like me. Basically, she thinks that you're patriotic if you question the government. Now, I'll agree that the First Amendment gives us the right to question, but she apparently thinks that you're only patriotic IF you disagree, and that people who think the government is doing a good job are just going along with the crowd (again, I didn't capture her exact quote here, so it seems less harsh).

I can say a few things about that position. Yes, questioning government is healthy, but who the crap said that you have to disagree? The reason we ask questions is to arrive at an intelligent answer. You don't pull a Janeane Garofalo and just protest because it's trendy. Hey, I questioned the war when it started, but I eventually decided that it was a good thing after analyzing all aspects of it. I spent the better part of last year questioning my religion before I came to the conclusion that Christianity is true. You question so you can take the right position. It becomes unpatriotic when you compare Bush to Hitler and say that you hope Saddam wins. That's anti-Americanism no matter which way you look at it. If you don't like it, move to Iraq.

I probably could've phrased this argument better, but you get the point. There's a difference between exercising your constitutional rights and just being an a-hole. Amazingly, this isn't the end of the post. I want to talk about something else that caught my eye in today's edition of "The Daily Orange," SU's student newspaper. Aside from the front page photos that show a gay student dancing and two lesbian students kissing at the "Big Gay Dance," the headline at the top of the page just screamed "liberalism." It says, "Study Says Race a Minor Factor in Admissions." Now, any logical person would think, "that's a good thing. College admission should be merit-based." Keep in mind, however, that this is a college newspaper.

I read a little bit more, and I found out that I was right. The opening paragraph reads, "Although many colleges pride themselves on their efforts to increase diversity, a recent national survey suggests that some admissions offices may not take race into account enough when admitting students." WHAT WHAT WHAT?! That's a bad thing?! Race-based admissions policies are racist, you idiots! What are you thinking? According to the article, "Only about one-third of universities and colleges actually consider race and ethnicity in their admissions policy..." That's terrible. There shouldn't be any consideration of race and ethnicity.

A couple paragraphs later, it says that Syracuse's "...general criteria for admission are high school course load, high school profile, standardized test scores, personal essay, recommendations, extracurricular activities, special talents, good character and competition with other applicants." This is seen as a problem? That's what it's supposed to be based on, you racist liberal...okay, I need to calm down. Here's the best quote of the article. According to one student they interviewed, "If they didn't [consider race and ethnicity], our schools would be very white." Can you imagine a conservative saying, "well, with these policies, our schools are too black." That guy would be stigmatized for the rest of his life!!!!!!

Another interesting fact from the article: "...74 percent of the surveyed schools use specific recruitment tactics to increase application and enrollment of underrepresented racial and ethnic populations." That's wrong. You should recruit smart people. If minorities meet the criteria, then by all means let them in, but don't push white people aside just because some "underprivileged" student whined about it.

Let me tell you, race-based admission policies make me sick. You can't force diversity on people. Instead of trying to create a diverse environment, people should learn to interact with whatever group they're placed in. If it's 14,995 white people and 5 black people, they should learn to interact. If it's a mixed group, those people should learn to interact. You can't create some idealistic environment of diversity because it fits your racist worldview. I really don't understand how people can see this as a good thing. It's blatantly racist. Blatantly. Unfortunately, racism is apparently nonexistent unless it comes from a white person (other than Michael Moore).

Honestly, I feel insecure as a white male in today's society. I feel like people are going to blame me for all the world's problems and call me a racist if I complain. That's not right. I really think I've written too much, but I needed to get this out. Why can't we move on to a colorblind society where character takes precedent over the color of your skin or the place where you were born? How long are we going to linger in this reverse racist limbo where racial and ethnic discrimination masquerade as diversity? When will it end?

I hope you read that whole thing, because I spent a lot of time on it. I have about 10 pages worth of essays to write today, so that was a good warm-up. By the way, I'll end my race rant with an interesting observation. My roommate (who still doesn't know I have this blog) walked in when I was about halfway through this post and turned on the TV. In an extremely lucky coincidence, he turned to Comedy Central, and they were showing Saturday Night Live. The sketch was the one with "Sparkle-Brite" toothpaste, if you know it. It's the one where they advertise toothpaste by showing Tim Meadows (black) kissing Molly Shannon (white) for a really long time. The ad execs are very uncomfortable watching it, and when they hear that the commercial is going to be shown at the Country Music Awards, they blow up the advertiser's car.

I've never understood why this sketch is funny. Really. It was made in the mid 90's. Was anyone still uncomfortable with interracial couples by this time? It seems like that sketch might have been funny in the 60's or 70's, but why did anyone think it would be funny in the 90's? This implies that race is still the first thing people look at, and that a decent amount of people still see something wrong with interracial marriage. That makes no sense. And that's what I'm saying here. We need to realize that not everybody is the same color, but if we happen to be in an environment where a lot of people are white, it doesn't mean that racism is to blame. It might just be because there are a lot of white people.

Think about it. Republicans oppose affirmative action because it treats minorities as inferiors who need a helping hand. Democrats support affirmative action because, unfortunately, the right has been stereotyped as the "evil white patriarchy," and minorities are portrayed as victims of millennia of oppression. That may be true of the past, but this is the 21st century, and we're beyond racism. Let's start acting like it. Have a nice day.

Documentation:
Textbook quotes taken from "Media and Culture-an Introduction to Mass Communication," by Richard Campbell, Christopher R. Martin, and Bettina Fabos. Copyright 2004 by Bedford/St. Martin's of Boston, Massachusetts. Specifically, chapter 16, "Legal Controls and Freedom of Expression," pages 536-538. There, now it's all nice and legal.

Newspaper quotes taken from "The Daily Orange" for October 7, 2003. Article is "Study Says Race a Minor Factor in Admissions," by Jean Stevens. By the way, happy Math Literacy Week.

Monday, October 06, 2003

Sports Rivalries Are Frightening (plus a bonus rant on the death penalty) 

Well, once again, I lied about it being the last post of the day, but I'm trying to put off those papers for as long as humanly possible, so I'll write a bit more here, although it is kind of ironic that I'm writing in order to avoid writing. I want to talk a little about this whole Red Sox/Yankees rivalry. It's insane. It's really insane. The people on my floor were losing their minds over the Red Sox game. Meanwhile, the Yankees fans were insulting them. I heard things like, "Boston is gonna lose this game. You know why? Because BOSTON SUCKS!!!!" Of course, when Boston won, their fans started yelling and running up and down the halls, knocking on people's doors, the usual. I've mentioned that my roommate is a huge Yankees fan, so I'm a bit nervous about Boston and New York playing each other in the next series. One of his friends here is a big Sox fan, and I think they may have some problems. I said something like, "You and John aren't going to fight to the death or anything over this, are you?" His answer was, "Maybe if it goes to game 7...if John dies of 'natural causes' after Boston wins, I can't be held responsible." That was frightening. I'm glad I'm not taking sides with this one, being a Pittsburgher and everything (the Pirates still suck). One girl (the one who had the friend visiting-see Saturday's posts) even locked her roommate out because of the Boston/New York rivalry. I think her roommate is the Red Sox fan, but I'm not positive. In any case, this is going to be an interesting couple of weeks. I want to quickly write about one more thing before I really do sign off for the night. I was reading the NYT online again, and I saw an article about how humane lethal injection is. Apparently, if they don't use the right amount of chemicals, the inmate will be paralyzed but still conscious when injected with potassium chloride, which stops the heart and will "deliver the maximum amount of pain the veins can deliver, which is a lot." They're apparently worried that this is inhumane and are trying to find a way to make it completely painless. Give me a break. Why are these people so worried about how much the prisoner suffers? I thought the whole point of lethal injection was to make it easier on the people watching. Did it ever occur to them that the reason the person is being executed is that they have committed a crime against humanity and don't deserve to live? We're not talking about euthanasia here, we're talking about execution of convicted criminals, many of them guilty of multiple murders. Why should they be able to cause all that pain and suffering and then just doze off into death? At times, I think we should just inject them with sulfuric acid and watch them melt from the inside, but that would probably be a bit gratuitous. However, if there's a way to cause as much pain as possible without allowing onlookers to emphathize with the prisoner, as they can with electrocution, gas, hanging, firing squad, and other methods, why should people protest? The guy's going to die in a couple minutes anyway. It's not like he's going to sue anyone. I realize that my Christian beliefs allow for an eternity of punishment, but I really think that we need to send them off properly. What really confuses me is the fact that the same people who protest this kind of thing are usually the ones who defend abortion. That just doesn't make sense to me. At least with the death penalty, the victim has done something to deserve it. I'm not going to get into wrongful imprisonment or anything here, but I think that in cases where the prisoner is proven 100% guilty of murder, he should not be allowed to die peacefully. I'm pretty sure Timothy McVeigh was conscious when he died, and personally, I hope it was incredibly painful. Furthermore, if we catch Saddam Hussein, we should just give him the potassium chloride without all that anaesthetic crap. Once again, I think I went too far, but this is my blog and I'll say what I want. I hope you'll see the logic of my position. Later.

All Blogs Get Attention 

Before I sign off for the day, here's a funny story. I started a blog a couple weeks ago called "Evil Monkeys," and it's basically a series of posts where a guy describes fighting a bunch of killer monkeys, and they usually end up hurting him. I didn't mean for it to be serious. It was just a joke, a way for me to have some fun. However, I decided to add a hit counter just to see if anyone was seeing it, and 13 people have been there in the last 2 days! Someone even put a link to it on their blog! This is a public service announcement for any new bloggers out there. If you have a blog, people will find it. It doesn't matter how much you post or how good it is, people will find it. My hit counter is up to 44 now, so I'm feeling pretty good about the future. It still seems like most people aren't staying very long, but at least they know I'm here. Okay, I have work to do, so it's time for me to go. Remember, every blog gets viewers. The key is to install a Sitemeter tracker so you know that people are coming. Goodnight.

NOTE: I'm not going to link to "Evil Monkeys" because it's incredibly stupid. If you find it, it's best to just ignore it.

The ACLU is Hilarious 

Go here if you want a good laugh. According to their "religious freedom" page, if your religion involves marijuana use, you should be able to violate drug laws, but if your religion says homosexuality is wrong, you're a bigot. Brilliant. Just brilliant. These people are a great example of what happens when you open your mind too much and let your brain out. That's all I wanted to post. Later.

How to Mess with the Thought Police 

Okay, I was sitting in the dining hall eating a bowl of soup (as if you care), and I somehow started thinking about campus speech codes. You know, the ones that deem certain words offensive and create protected groups. At one of the floor meetings, my RA told us that we couldn't say things like "that's gay" or "that's retarded" because "you never know who you're offending." That seemed a little strange to me, because that means anything that offends a large number of people can be considered hate speech. I wonder what would happen if I started an organization to protest the name of the school because the word "Syracuse" is offensive to us. We wouldn't even say why it's offensive, but we'd try and get a petition with 1000 signatures saying that the name of the school is hate speech and should be changed. Hey, if it offends enough people, it must be offensive, right? We could even come up with some stupid reasoning for the argument. "In our group's secret language, the word 'Syracuse' is a derogatory term for Mexicans. That's not very nice. We need to change it!" Would they have to change the name of the school because it offended us? It's a stupid reason to be offended, but none of this so-called "hate speech" is really that bad in context. I can understand certain words offending people, but every group shouldn't get special protection just because they're different. In any case, that's how these words started. Somebody decided to use a certain word to insult a group of people, others started using it, and it eventually became "hate speech." What I find odd, however, is that not everyone is protected from being offended. Here's an interesting example of hypocrisy: I'm overweight. If somebody wanted to call me fat, or fatty, or some other annoying word, they could get away with it. That's not right by their own logic. Every group should be protected! I'm rambling again, but this was just an interesting thought. Could you make a word hate speech just by saying that it offends you? I encourage college students to try this one out. By the way, I really am overweight, but I don't go crying to the authorities whenever someone makes a fat joke. I just deal with it. Other people should learn to do the same. One more note: The counter's at 40! I'm impressed. People still aren't staying very long, but it's good to know that someone is actually looking at my work.

Comments 

Just thought I'd add a quick note here. If you have something to say about one of the posts, feel free to add a comment. I know you can't tell how many comments there are, but I can use the Blogspeak editor to see if there are any new ones, so at least I'll know that you had something to say. I'm still trying to figure out how to fix the comment counter, but remember, if you write a comment, I will see it. Thanks.

Types of Posts 

As promised, I will include a list of the different kinds of posts that I make for the site, but I want to cover a couple other topics before that. First of all, the hit counter is up to 34, and I think all of them came from VRWC. One of them even stayed for 15 minutes! I really appreciate the publicity, and I hope everyone comes back. Also, I've noticed that spam is getting much more clever. It's not as easy to identify as it used to be. Before, it would say something like "Free Prescription Drugs," or "Hottest XXX Teens on the Net," or, "Work From Home and Make More $!" Back in those days, you could just delete it because you knew it was worthless. Now, they trick you into opening it. I just got an e-mail, and the subject line said, "Hope This Helps You Out." I thought maybe it was a visitor to the site with a tip on how to fix my comments or something, but it turned out to be another one of those "work from home" ones. That's not right. You shouldn't get people's hopes up like that. That's equivalent to a telemarketer calling you and saying, "Hey, What's up, buddy? I heard you needed some advice. Well, I suggest you replace your roof!" Anyway, if you're going to be an idiot and send spam, at least make it obvious that it's a useless e-mail that no sane person would respond to. Now that I've gotten that off my chest, I'll put up the list. As you may know, I have no theme to this site, and it's kind of an "omniblog," covering all different types of blog topics. Therefore, there are several different categories of posts that I write. Maybe I'll start identifying them in the title sometime so you know what to expect. That would be an interesting change. Anyway, here they are:
-Lists: This is an example of a list. I pick a topic and write a list of things that fit the topic. Pretty self-explanatory.
-Political rants: Whenever something political makes me really mad, I write about it. I usually end up using the words "left-wing lunatic" at some point.
-Religious rants: I'm a Christian, so I get offended by a lot of what goes on in daily life. When I see something that either makes me embarrassed to be a Christian or makes it hard to be a Christian, I write a religious rant.
-Social rants: Anything in culture or society that makes me angry fits this category. For example, yesterday's post about reality shows would be a social rant.
-Dorm stories: Get it? It sounds like "Storm Stories!" That's a TV show! Anyway, dorm stories are posted when something strange or entertaining happens in my residence hall. There are a lot of "interesting" people on my floor, so these happen a lot. This category may also include college anecdotes that happen outside the dorm, but I really like that name.
-Reviews: If I get a new CD, watch a TV show, see a movie, or partake in some other form of entertainment, I may review it. So far, I've reviewed Nickelback and Jim Breuer.
-Blog reports: When something happens to the blog, I talk about it in a blog report. Another self-explanatory one.
-Miscellaneous: Anything that doesn't fit into any of these categories. That doesn't happen much.

I hope that helps you enjoy SIT on another level. Remember, sign the petition to revoke Michael Moore's Oscar if you haven't done so already. There's only one more signature today than there was when I signed it. Again, I don't know how current it is, but it feels good to put your name on it. They even let you add a comment. I wrote, "Give the Oscar to someone who deserves it!" Even if they never send the petition out, it really is a good way to release aggression. Not much else to write about yet. I have two papers due on Wednesday, and I haven't started on either one of them yet, so I'll probably be posting less frequently until then. Fortunately, I have this Friday off, so that's another long weekend. I should do a lot more posting then. Keep checking for more.

Sunday, October 05, 2003

Status Report (and a needlessly long "dorm story") 

Just a real quick post to end the day (it's actually 1:50 in the morning, but I'm changing the time so this goes in the right section. Being a webmaster is fun). First of all, I got a total of 17 hits today. That's exactly what I wanted. It's amazing how many people came here from the "recently updated blogs" list at Blogger. This means people actually go through that list and read the pages. What's really scary is that all the hits were unique. That means that more than 10 people thought "Semi-Intelligent Thoughts" was interesting enough to look at. Unfortunately, most people haven't been staying for more than a couple minutes. I guess I need to be more interesting. Also, about 5 or 6 hits were referrals from VRWC. That happened really fast. A couple of those people actually took the time to visit the archives, so I appreciate that. In all, I now have 27 hits, and when you take away the number of times I affected that before I told Sitemeter to ignore my IP, you get about 24 or 25. That's not bad. I would like to thank everyone who read anything on here, even if you just took a quick look. I'm new at this, so I still get excited when the counter goes up. It's a bit of an ego boost. Hopefully, more people will leave comments and things eventually, although it might be a good idea to try and fix those huge numbers next to the word "comments." I e-mailed Blogspeak about it and they said to re-enter the code, but that didn't fix it. Any suggestions? I'll end today with a brief anecdote about a rather strange person on my floor. I don't know his name, but he has a tendency to come up to me in the bathroom and ask me really weird questions. I was washing my hands today, and he came up to me and said, "You got a haircut again?" This was odd, because I actually hadn't gotten a haircut. I got a haircut a couple weeks ago, and this same guy asked me where I got it, but that was a while ago. So I said, "no," to which he replied, "you get a haircut, like, every two weeks." This annoyed me, so I said, "I didn't get a haircut." In response to that, he muttered something under his breath and walked out. That is one of the most bizarre things that has happened to me in my first month of college. Why the crap did he think I got a haircut? My hair grows really fast, and I'm actually in need of a haircut now! I haven't even shaved in about 3 days, so I'm even hairier than usual! What was he thinking? And why did he not believe me when I told him I didn't get one? This dude genuinely bothers me, to tell you the truth. A couple days ago, I somehow got to talking to him about my major, and I said I was studying TV/Radio/Film. I told him that I wanted to be a writer/director, and he said, "that's one in a million. You'll probably have to move out to California, you know." He then said that I wouldn't make a good director because I'm shy (I actually am kind of shy, but who cares?). I told him that that's why I was plannning on writing the stuff down first, but he just said that I would still have to sell it to people. That's really annoying. To make things worse, the conversation eventually came to my college choice, and he criticized me for going to Syracuse because, in his opinion, I could've stayed in Pittsburgh and gone to Pitt or the Art Institute. That's not a good way to interact, children. You don't criticize someone's choice of colleges and career aspirations and then expect them to be on good terms with you. I successfully controlled the urge to smack him around a bit, and instead explained that if you put Syracuse University on your resume, you can basically get a job anywhere. I then walked out of the bathroom (this was right after I had taken a shower, by the way) before I did something I might regret later. I really shouldn't be writing so much about this guy, but he's really irritating. Did I mention he has an annoying voice? He's one of those people whose voice never really finished changing, so it's all high-pitched and trembly. I'm sure a few people can identify with this. I just hope he doesn't read this. That wouldn't help the whole social thing. My roommate's going to sleep, so I should probably do the same. I'll post again tomorrow, but I have a lot of work to do, so it may be a little less than today. Goodnight.

*UPDATE*
Hey, my roommate actually wasn't going to sleep. He's writing an e-mail right now. Anyway, I've decided that tomorrow, I'll write a list of the different kinds of posts I make for the blog. Since I don't have a particular focus, I write stuff in different categories. For example, that last thing was a "dorm story," and my piece about reality shows was a "social rant." More about that tomorrow.

Make them Stop! 

I know I'm posting kind of sporadically today, but I really need to vent right now. I just saw an advertisement on Fox for "The Next Joe Millionaire" or something. HOW PATHETIC CAN YOU BE?! From what I understand, they're going to tell a bunch of European women that the guy is worth 80 million dollars in oil. The advertisement featured a woman with very broken English saying, "I think I'm going to enjoy this lifestyle." If you mean humiliation, you may be mistaken on that one. I've never understood reality shows. The only time I ever watched a reality show was "Survivor 2," and I only watched that because 1) I got extra credit for talking about it in my Spanish class, and 2) Amber was from Beaver, PA, which is where my parents are from. I've never been able to stand any other ones, and I even stopped watching that one after Amber got voted off. Whoever decided that "reality" means putting a bunch of socially inept, mentally challenged, but still physically attractive people together on an island should not be allowed to roam free on the streets, and the person who started this whole "deception" trend should be taken to a secluded location where he believes a new mansion is waiting for him. Once there, he should be locked in a small shack for 6 months with nothing to eat or drink but water and moldy bread, and he should be given a TV that only gets reruns of Rosie O'Donnell. That'll teach him. Reality shows are idiotic. They take gullible people and exploit their unfortunate mental shortcomings for ratings and advertising space. This is roughly equivalent to putting a bunch of retarded children on a huge stage and telling the audience to laugh at them. It's wrong! What really bothers me is the fact that these morons become celebrities for their televised antics. Personally, I would be embarrassed to see myself on one of those shows. I'd rather be on "Cops" than "Survivor." And these women that go on shows like "The Bachelor" and "Joe Millionaire" should really be given psychological help. How can you be stupid enough to think that you're going to meet your soulmate on a game show? Especially on Fox! They're the masters of exploitation! I don't think I can milk this topic much longer, so I'm going to stop. By the way, James Finch gave me a brief plug on VRWC, so apparently someone likes my work. Be sure to go to his site if you get the chance. He's a bit better at this blogging thing than I am, and we need as many conservative blogs as possible. This is one type of communication that the liberals won't conquer so easily. I'm up to 22 hits now, and I'm starting to realize that this is a serious thing. Sitemeter predicts several hundred hits by the end of the month. That's exciting. Anyway, keep blogging, and remember that there's a difference between "reality TV" and reality (this includes some things on CNN).

Sign the Petition 

I really don't have much to say, but I get new readers when I update the blog, so I'll quickly post this. I added a link in the "Michael Moore" section that goes to a petition to revoke his Oscar. I don't know how current it is, but you should still sign it. My signature was number 3,669, so apparently a lot of people have contributed to this. Even if you like Michael Moore or disagree with the second amendment, this is about respect for the film industry. Like I said before, I'm planning to be a writer/director, and seeing people like Moore abuse the privilege that filmmakers have makes me sick. Go to Bowling for Truth and read about his "documentary," and you'll agree that he may deserve an award, but not for nonfiction. Sign the petition. By the way, the hit counter is currently at 19. Where the fudge are all you people coming from? I just started counting yesterday! Thanks for reading my blog, in any case. I hope you'll come back. Also, check out the links. I don't link people unless they're really good. Later.

*UPDATE*
What did I tell ya? I got reader number 20 less than two minutes after I posted this! Whoever you are, thanks!

Brief Update 

I have to go eat dinner before the dining hall gets too crowded, but I thought I'd let everyone know that I updated the links (as if you couldn't tell by LOOKING AT THEM). I manipulated the HTML a bit with my limited knowledge in that particular area, and I managed to split them into separate categories, making them easier to go through. You can now choose from "News/Politics," "Religion," "Music," "Michael Moore," and "Syracuse." I expect the list to grow in the future, which is why I created these categories. If you happen to have a blog and are reading this, I can give you a link in exchange for one on your page provided it fits one of the categories. The only downside is that the extended list pushes new posts to the left, but I guess that makes them look bigger. Kinda like wearing tight pants...hmm, I've said too much. Also, the hit counter now says 11! I've hit the big time, baby! One more observation before I go: Why do people in dorms insist on yelling and clapping every time their team does something good? Do you think they can frickin' hear you? The people on my floor take sports much too seriously. I heard one guy say something like, "I hate the [I forget which team he said]! I hope every f***ing member of that team dies!" That's a little harsh considering they're just playing a game, don't you think? Oh, well. Maybe it's just because all sports suck royally in comparison to hockey, and I can't get enthusiastic about football or baseball. In conclusion, hockey=good, other sports=bad. Don't forget that.

Stop the Presses (at the New York Times)! 

Well, I didn't have anything to post about again, so I decided to go to the New York Times online and browse until some piece of liberal propaganda made me angry enough to write something. That was a good idea, because just about every headline today shows the obvious left-wing bias that they constantly deny.

Here's a few examples: "Report Offered Bleak Outlook About Iraq Oil," "Complete Coverage: The Struggle for Iraq," "Ex-Minister Says Blair Knew Iraq Had No Banned Arms," "C.I.A. Chief Caught in Middle," Is that enough for you? I can just see them sitting in their little editing meetings or whatever they do. One guy would say, "Hey, here's a story about soldiers rebuilding an Iraqi school and giving candy to all the children! Can we print it?" Then the editor would say, "Bush bad! Dead soldier good! No war for oil! Vote for Wesley Clark! Arnold groping! Graaarrr!!!" And then he would rip the arms off the guy who suggested the story so he could never write again.

Seriously, could you people be any more frickin' negative? I'm a cynical pessimist and I get depressed reading your headlines! I like the headline, "The Struggle for Iraq." That makes it sound really bad despite the fact that we pretty much control every part of the country except the Sunni Triangle, and I'm fairly certain that a few dozen arabs with RPG's and AK-47's aren't going to chase off a few thousand trained U.S. troops. And of course, they have to include as many stories as possible trying to convince people that we went to war for the wrong reasons. They seem to be going after Tony Blair now, since Dubya has become such a straw man for the Times that they don't even bother mentioning him anymore.

There's another interesting article here that says, "In the Face of Death, an Undercover Life of Guns." Apparently it's about police officers that pose as criminals to investigate firearms. I find the headline odd because it makes an effort to put "guns" and "death" in the same sentence. The little description thing under it talks about how the officers "pose as criminals to deal with criminals." Right, because everyone who has a gun and doesn't wear a badge is a criminal, you moonbats. I just skimmed through the first page of the article, and it talks about how they stop gun trafficking, but it doesn't say WHAT KIND OF GUNS! This is brilliant. "Hey, I've got an idea! Instead of talking about illegal firearms or violent crime, let's villify the guns themselves...again!"

In the article, the officer being interviewed says, "...we know we've got a gun out there...This is a moral issue." What? WHAT?! What kind of guns? I just read the second of 4 pages, and they still haven't identified what kind of firearms are being investigated. It just says "guns." Actually, it talks about shotguns and pistols and things, but these are legal! It mentions assault weapons once, and that's it. Another fun little tactic is how they set up the scenario for an undercover gun purchase. The way they describe it, you'd think it was a drug deal if they didn't put the word "gun" in the story.

This is idiotic. I know they're taking guns away from dangerous criminals, but why do they spend the entire article talking about how bad the guns themselves are? They don't talk about how many people they've arrested, but they mention how many guns have been confiscated. They even take the time to describe officers being shot and mention how afraid they are of guns. This is going too far. It's obvious they're trying to make people feel sorry for these officers and support gun control.

I think I may have gone too far with this rant, but after taking AP English last year, I'm able to get a lot of meaning out of a few words (I had to read James Joyce). Maybe this is why the liberals are against war. "Yes, I think Saddam Hussein should be deposed, but...guns? Someone could get hurt! Why don't you take this whiffle bat? It's really loud but doesn't hurt much. There, play nice, children!" How dumb can you be?

I should stop. Really. I'm going to start breaking things if I think about this much longer. By the way, the counter hit the big 1-0 at 3:00 this morning. According to my stats, someone on the University of Idaho's domain was reading my blog. That's intense! I realize that 3 or 4 of the hits are from me, but 6 or 7 is still pretty good for one day.

I noticed that other blogs don't really update much on the weekends. Why? That's when you have the most time! I've never understood that. I'm in college. I have homework every night. On weekends, I have lots of time to put off that homework, and I like to work on my blog and read other blogs. I don't understand why so many people take weekends off. Do you see this as work? Blogging is a hobby, not a chore! I guess people who get thousands of hits a day do need to work a little harder, but I still think if they updated more on weekends they could get a lot more hits. Weekends are when I read blogs the most. I can't be the only one.

Anyway, that's it for now. The guys across the hall are yelling at the Giants game. They have to watch it on a computer because it's not being broadcast on TV in Syracuse. That's dedication. I'll end with a question: How many blogs could a blogger log if a blogger could log blogs? I expect your answer to use the metric system. This is 10% of your grade. Don't F it up.

Blogospherical Observations 

I know it's 1 in the morning (at least it is in New York), but I felt I should comment briefly on some of the other blogs that are out there. I was just browsing through some of the recently updated blogs in the Blogger index, and most of them are pathetic. Some of them are just two posts about absolutely nothing, and lts f thm hv evrthng speld lk ths! Worse than that are the ones that are like, "OMG, I wuz ROTFLMAO @skool 2day b/c sum chik 8 2 much BTW this is OT &...O, BRB, LOL! ;)" That kind of butchering of the English language is meant for message boards and DNC memos, not blogs! Have you people heard of spell check? HAVE YOU?! Not everybody understands what you're trying to say when you don't spell it right. Also, people give their blogs asinine names. I was browsing through the index and seeing things like "I hate you all," and "F**k all you f***ing f***ers," and "Q&FHSL#*%&!(D(DJF|||||\\\||\|" Plus, some of them are in Spanish. Why are they in Spanish? Isn't there like...El Blogador...or something? I just realized I'm rambling, which is incredibly hard to do when you have a delete key available at all times. Anyway, it's amazing how many terrible and useless blogs are out there. Do people expect to get readers with this crap? I'm amazed I actually got people to read mine, and I would be extremely surprised if some of these weird sites got any traffic. If you're going to write that badly, just keep a journal. Don't go leaking your grammatical diarrhea into the giant toilet that is the Internet. Sorry, that got a little graphic. I probably should stop posting things after midnight. That's when the medication wears off (that's not a joke). So, in conclusion, I'll probably have meaningful content tomorrow, but it might just be more of this. Something political needs to happen so I can rant about it and find another way to instruct people to hit John Kerry with a baseball bat. My first plan didn't work, but I'm not done yet. Goodnight.

This page is powered by Blogger. Isn't yours?

God Bless America