« The environment is there for political reform | Main | Too Weird »

October 01, 2007

Comments

just to catch you up:

Dems still spineless
Reps still conniving
Iraq still in flames
Iran about to be lit
Rudy still gonna win

In any case, consider this an open thread, brought to you by my sense of guilt for being a Bad Bad Blogger.

This gets it exactly right.

You should feel guilty for not providing me with well-written, thoughtful, useful, entertaining, and awesome blogging for free. The nerve...

;-)

Praise the Lord and pass the postings.

Ah, an open thread and the return of hilzoy.

Let us celebrate with a Schadenfreude Pie.

Rudy still gonna win

You think? Well, true, he's the candidate people most want to drop[*] peyote with, the Committable Conservative. But I still doubt it. He has Bush's knowledge of the world, only with less humility, and Cheney's nuttiness without the subtle humor... oh my, we're all gonna die!

[*] or whatever it is you do with peyote.

Although, on reflection, that news would probably have seeped down to Maine.

Wait...Maine isn't part of Canada?

Who knew?

Anyway, welcome back.

For all I know, we invaded Canada.

Coveting our more valuable dollar?

Rudi _is_ the candidate voters would most like to try on dresses with.

BTW, what one does with peyote is throw it back up.

This blog post title is akin to something one of my students might write. Convergence?

Random secret history speculation. You have the suspicion that the president and/or vice president, and a handful of their immediate circle, are deep-cover agents of the Iranian mullahs. Presumably they were recruited during disillusioned drifting moments in the 1970s. What would you look for in their visible behavior as signs that they are not in fact attempting to destroy American power and security for the long term, in favor of Iranian ascendancy? That is, what are they doing that Iranian "Manchurian candidates" wouldn't, or vice versa?

So here's a completely random question: I was talking with a (straight male) friend today who was unconvinced of the risks of unprotected sex given his (straight male) orientation. [Don't ask why, I have strange conversations.] Specifically, he was claiming that the rates of transmission for various diseases were way overblown, so provided the girl he was with was on the pill he saw no reason to worry. I'd like to bludgeon him over the head with a clue stick, or at least a reliable (i.e. non-university health care) source but I can't seem to find one; can anyone suggest a suitable cluestick, preferably one with a Big Name Institution on it?

@ Anarch; this is where the tv-ad is saying 'Of course you can trust your bedparter. But can you trust all her/his former bedpartners? And all *their* former bedpartners?' With the right visual you are making love to quite a crowd ;)
Are you looking for factsheets like this?

@Open thread: the latest youtube video circulating in some of my Dutch blogs is about Amercan protesters being arrested for reading the American constitution...

Lots of jokes about finally understanding why Bush won't debate in an American University environment (he declined doing so in Iran because he couldn't talk in a country that wasn't democratic or had free speech). Appearantly Bush "exhibits all the signs of a petty and cruel dictator” and is “either brazenly provocative or astonishingly uneducated”.


@ Anarch; this is where the tv-ad is saying 'Of course you can trust your bedparter. But can you trust all her/his former bedpartners? And all *their* former bedpartners?' With the right visual you are making love to quite a crowd ;)

That's the problem with this new generation: they're so damn cynical that they just brush this kind of stuff off. It's the Just Say No effect.

Are you looking for factsheets like this?

Kind of, but what I'd really like are straight-up rate of transmission percentages; something like "If you have unprotected sex with a partner with gonorrhea, there's a 1 in 1000 chance of catching the disease". [Double bonus points for connecting the type of sexual contact with the transmission percentages, e.g. unprotected oral sex with transmitting syphilis, etc.] Once I have the actual statistical data I can hammer the point home, I just need somewhere to start -- which is to say, something that he'll believe.

Anyone heard anything recently about the FISA revision? I'm afraid it's going to burst on us suddenly again and be rushed through, and it's going to be really hard for Democrats to undo things they've already agreed to, even it was (theoretically) temporary.

The comments to this entry are closed.

Blog powered by Typepad