Yahoo! News - CONFESSIONS OF A CULTURAL ELITIST

So our guy lost the election. Why shouldn't those of us on the coasts feel superior? We eat better, travel more, dress better, watch cooler movies, earn better salaries, meet more interesting people, listen to better music and know more about what's going on in the world. If you voted for Bush, we accept that we have to share the country with you. We're adjusting to the possibility that there may be more of you than there are of us. But don't demand our respect. You lost it on November 2.

And this is why your guy lost. You think you're better and you made it very clear that "your guy" was too good for most of us. You tried to win this election on hate and scorn. There are many of us who are well educated who could not vote for Kerry for fear of putting people like this in power.
Your hatred and bigotry rivals that of the most assinine gay-basher. We don't need or want your respect, because what is the value of the respect of a hypocrite? You lost ours before November 2, and that is why you lost on November 2.

So the press-conference debate last night was interesting. My opinions on both candidates seems to remain un-affected though. I'll summarize:
Kerry: Bush misled us, Iraq is not connected to 9-11, our allies hate us, it's all Bush's fault, I'll do something that's better. 90% of cost, 90% of casualties.
Bush: Um... Kerry is inconsistent, he voted for war, now he says it was a mistake, he belittles our allies, Don't change horses in midstream. Stay the course.
repeat with minor variations for 90 minutes.
The way I see it, Kerry keeps saying he has plans, and he'll do better without ever saying how. Bush says Saddam needed to be removed and we did.
I've seen people critisizing the one-track nature of the debate, but that was because of the "rules" imposed by the Candidates. Hopefully they will cover topics other than the ones they've been spouting about since day one of this campaign in the future debates.
In the end, it seemed to me that Bush is a fairly bad public speaker. He has trouble getting his words out. But he does, in fact say exactly what he means to say, mispronunciations aside. (Like you've never mispronounced anything, especially with millions of people watching.) What he says is very narrow in scope and very self-serving, but then, this is a campaign, that's what he wants.
Kerry, on the other hand was very polished, always finished in the last five seconds, never stuttered, never stalled, never got excited. It kind of creeped me out.
In a conversation with someone on-line they mentioned that "Bush is a loose cannon" and I responded:
At least if you know a cannon is loose, you know to stay clear and start trying to tie it down. With Kerry, I don't know if the cannon's loose, loaded or a stage prop.
Oh well...

From FuzzyTummyRumblings Words: Assault Weapons

Can anybody give me any logical reason why these weapons should be in the hands of anybody other than law enforcement and military?

The only reason that they should not be banned from sale and possession outright, is because if the government has the right to restrict some types of fire-arms, thereby restricting the 2nd amendment, what will stop them from restricting some types of speech? some types of religion?
Oh wait... libel's illegal, so is slander... and the whole "or prohibiting the free exercise thereof" seems to have been over-shadowed by the concept of "seperation of church and state" (which isn't even in the constitution.
All weapons owned by private citizens should be restricted to no more than 6 rounds per load and fire 1 round per trigger pull. If you can't hit what you are shooting at in six rounds, you're not going to hit it at all. In fact, I don't really see a good reason that the restriction shouldn't apply to normal service side-arms for law enforcement.

A response to The Male Privilege Checklist
While there are many privileges that I enjoy because of my gender, race, financial status, etc. etc. etc... I am angered by those who choose to blame an "-ism" for their shortcomings and failures. What are the gender ratios among the homeless? in prison?
I have known people in my life who were accused of discrimination because they made an honest judgement of the quality of a person's work, but because that person was part of a "minority" group, the assesment was seen as biased. The problem, usually is not one of discrimination, but of stupidity and fear.

4. If I fail in my job or career, I can feel sure this won't be seen as a black mark against my entire sex's capabilities.

I can never blame my failures on discrimination of any kind, even if it is true.

5. The odds of my encountering sexual harassment on the job are so low as to be negligible.

The odds of an innocent act being construed as harassment are much higher for my sex.

6. If I do the same task as a woman, and if the measurement is at all subjective, chances are people will think I did a better job.

Unless the task is in any way based in creativity or emotion.

11. If I have children and provide primary care for them, I'll be praised for extraordinary parenting if I'm even marginally competent.

But if I do provide extraordinary parenting, it will never be recognized as such. I will always be seen as a cute anomoly.

17. As a child, I could choose from an almost infinite variety of children's media featuring positive, active, non-stereotyped heroes of my own sex. I never had to look for it; male heroes were the default.

As a child, I was given nothing but stereotyped "heroes": GI Joe, Professional Atheletes. Where were the artists, the blue-collar workers?

19. If my day, week or year is going badly, I need not ask of each negative episode or situation whether or not it has sexist overtones.

Because no one would belive that sexism had any part in it, regardless of if it did or not.

20. I can turn on the television or glance at the front page of the newspaper and see people of my own sex widely represented, every day, without exception.

Usually portrayed as crooks, theives, liars, murderers, etc.

24. If I have sex with a lot of people, it won't make me an object of contempt or derision.

Except among thinking people.

25. There are value-neutral clothing choices available to me; it is possible for me to choose clothing that doesn't send any particular message to the world.

Simply not true. If this were true, there would be no "make-over" shows featuring men.

27. If I buy a new car, chances are I'll be offered a better price than a woman buying the same car.

If I buy a practical car, my masculinity will be questioned.

29. I can be loud with no fear of being called a shrew. I can be aggressive with no fear of being called a bitch.

Asshole, jack-ass, "not a team player"...

37. If I have a wife or live-in girlfriend, chances are we'll divide up household chores so that she does most of the labor, and in particular the most repetitive and unrewarding tasks.

Which is not a societal issue but an issue within the relationship.

38. If I have children with a wife or girlfriend, chances are she'll do most of the childrearing, and in particular the most dirty, repetitive and unrewarding parts of childrearing.

Chances are that I will not be around for the exciting, beautiful and most rewarding parts of childrearing either.

39. If I have children with a wife or girlfriend, and it turns out that one of us needs to make career sacrifices to raise the kids, chances are we'll both assume the career sacrificed should be hers.

Again a relationship issue, not a societal one.
As well, if I have children with a wife or girlfriend and the relationship ends, chances are that we'll both assume (as well as the courts) that she will get custody of the children without question.

41. I am not expected to spend my entire life 20-40 pounds underweight.

I am expected to be athletic, fit and muscular throughout my life.

42. If I am heterosexual, it's incredibly unlikely that I'll ever be beaten up by a spouse or lover.

However, if I am, I will get no sympathy, no support, no marches, no publicity.

43. I have the privilege of being unaware of my male privilege.

Simply, bullshit.

Utah may revoke Santa's aviation exemption

The city's airport board recently proposed a change in the part of the aviation code that said small aircraft must maintain an altitude of more than 2,000 feet (610 metres) while flying over Salt Lake City. For years, Santa Claus and his reindeer were granted an exception -- but no more.

Have none of these people seen Miracle on 34th Street? Or any other Christmas movie? The issue isn't about if Santa exists, the issue is one learning what kind of person you are. Are you the kind of person that believes that the impossible isn't? Or are you the kind of person who, believes that being "modern and professional" means "joy-less and unimaginative."
Obviously, the Santa Exception was intended as a light-hearted gesture to bring some fun into the oh-so-exciting world of local laws. Maybe the people of Salt Lake City, in the interests of being "Modern and Professional" should look at taking this more seriously? Perhaps some provisions for enforcement? How much should Santa be fined if he violates the new rules? Will attempts be made to apprehend Santa should he violate the rule? Will those who leave out cookies and milk be charged with aiding and abetting? And will Superman also be subject to the altitude limits?
This is important people.

Japanese Nuclear Leak Kills Five Workers ITV.com, UK Four Killed in Nuclear Accident The Age, Australia Japanese Nuclear Accident Kills at Least Four The Register, UK Four Dead, Seven Injured in Japanese Nuke Plant Accident The Hindu, India Nuclear Leak Kills 4 in Japan Moscow Times, Russia Four Killed in Japan's Worst Nuclear Power Accident Telegraph.co.uk, UK

Ohmygodohmygodohmygod! We're all going to die!
In a nuclear power plant, there are radioactive mateirials which are insulated, protected, locked down and redundantly saftied. And then there's the other 90% of the plant which is an active industrial facility. This was an industrial accident, not a Nuclear accident, any more than the anti-aircraft guns on a nuclear powered aircraft carrier are Nuclear weapons. If you ever doubt that the media is biased, read the headlines... they are biased towards whatever will sell the most. Sensationalism, attacks on those in office, kissing the ass of those in office, giant headlines with small back page retractions. I'm not saying you can't trust the media... just remember, they're as biased as you are.

Pantagraph to Moore: Headline use 'misleading' 07/30/04

If he wants to "edit" The Pantagraph, he should apply for a copy-editing job and not simply show made-over and "falsely represented" pages from the newspaper in his movie -- or he should at least ask for permission first. In a moment early in the movie, newspaper headlines from around America that relate to the legally contested 2000 presidential election flash across the screen. One of them is purported to be from a Dec. 19, 2001, edition of The Pantagraph. But a check of that day's newspaper revealed the large headline prominently flashed in the movie -- "Latest Florida recount shows Gore won election" -- never appeared in that edition. Instead, the headline appeared in a Dec. 5, 2001, edition -- but not as a news headline. It was in much smaller type above a letter to the editor. Those headlines reflect only the opinions of the letter writer and are not considered "factual" news stories. In the movie, The Pantagraph page, as shown, was not how a real page from the newspaper would have looked. Moore's version had a different typeface and a different headline size from what The Pantagraph uses. The newspaper's name, however, appears in the correct font.

Interesting... in the whole country Moore couldn't find a paper that believed that Gore's supposed "stolen win" was big enough news to make it to the front page? And this was about an issue that made front pages all over the world for months. So Moore had to fake a newspaper headline and couldn't even be bothered to do a good job duplicating the font and size of headlines that The Pantagraph uses?
Did he expect that by using a small city's paper, people were less likely to check?
The thing is, I grew up in Bloomington, IL and I read (and delivered) The Pantagraph. It's not the best paper in the world, but at least they have some standards. Maybe next time Moore wants to make up headlines he should use a paper that makes up it's own headlines... like the New York Times?
I don't like Michael Moore. This has little to do with his politics. It's mostly because he doesn't seem to know when it's time to shut the hell up. Free Speech gives you the right to say whatever the hell you want; right or wrong, fact or fiction. But as an adult memeber of society you should know that there are times when certain subjects are appropriate and times when they are not. Conversations that are perfectly acceptable in a bar, can (rightly) get you fired at work. Discussions with your spouse in your living room may be completely unacceptable in a public park. This has nothing to do with Free Speech. It has to do with common courtesy. Michael Moore clearly hasn't learned where that line falls, and until he does, none of my money will be given to him. In other words, my decision not to see Farenheit 9/11 has less to do with Farenheit 9/11 but more with Moore's Oscar speech and his (clearly) lax definition of "documentary".