Please welcome Sir Jonathan Coogan!
He's little (7lbs), and rambunctious, and sooooo cute! All must love him!
It was very hard to take pictures of him, because he's normally bouncing about. Here, he's passed out with his e-collar on.
9.22.2005
9.14.2005
You can't take penguins away from us!
I hate opportunists. Especially Republican opportunists that try to ingratiate themselves to the public by tagging pop culture onto their conservative ideals. First it was rock songs, now it's penguins:
Obviously, they were not paying attention to the movie. Or not listening, which is very much their MO.
Sure, penguins are monogamous...for that year. After that, all bets are off. And as for child rearing--after the baby penguins get a second visit from their moms (the dads have already left for the ocean), the moms leave the baby penguins behind to fend for themselves all alone. The penguins haven't even shed their downy fuzz yet when their "dedicated" family abandons them. If the penguins don't know where to go (because mom doesn't wait for them), they DIE. That's family values for you.
I hate opportunists. Especially Republican opportunists that try to ingratiate themselves to the public by tagging pop culture onto their conservative ideals. First it was rock songs, now it's penguins:
Among a number of other conservative and Christian critics who praised its family values, Michael Medved said [March of the Penguins] is "the motion picture this summer that most passionately affirms traditional norms like monogamy, sacrifice and child rearing." Rich Lowry, editor of National Review, speaking at a gathering of young Republicans, said: "You have to check out 'March of the Penguins.' It is an amazing movie. And I have to say, penguins are the really ideal example of monogamy. These things -- the dedication of these birds is just amazing."
Obviously, they were not paying attention to the movie. Or not listening, which is very much their MO.
Sure, penguins are monogamous...for that year. After that, all bets are off. And as for child rearing--after the baby penguins get a second visit from their moms (the dads have already left for the ocean), the moms leave the baby penguins behind to fend for themselves all alone. The penguins haven't even shed their downy fuzz yet when their "dedicated" family abandons them. If the penguins don't know where to go (because mom doesn't wait for them), they DIE. That's family values for you.
9.08.2005
Pointing fingers
Here's my soapbox moment over this media chaos over who's to blame for the mess that is Louisiana. Look people--whoever dropped the ball, dropped it. Let's try and get all that we can in there and fix the problem at hand and stop with the finger pointing.
Let me clarify something too that the media is totally botching. From the military and legal perspective, the National Guard is activated under Title 32 of the US Code by state governors in cases of disaster relief, unless the National guard hasn't already been activated as reserve units overseas (as in this case of the those already sent to Iraq). It's the state governor's role to call them in and it's the state's money that pays for them. Otherwise, multiple states' guards can be called in by the President under Title 10, which makes them active military at that point and no longer under the state governors' orders, so they legally can't do any police work, hence the big mess with the LA riots a while back.
My pain with Pres Bush and republicans in general is that by having a "small government" and reducing dollars going to improving the domestic situation when concentrating on foreign problems, we are looking at a weak, unfunded, and undeveloped state/federal structure for dealing with domestic disasters. If they want a protected happy homeland, how about pumping some funds into the homeland, huh?
My solution for the future--forget this state/federal crap. This isn't the civil war, and states do not need separate militias to defend their territories. The federal government should create a comprehensive system where the national guards are funded by the federal government, but housed in each state, and may be used by the federal government in a common defense of the homeland. In case of natural disaster, state governments should have the authority to call them immediately to do policing duties en masse. The guard should not be used as a reserve for active duty. That is what the Reserves are for.
I won't even get into my rampage about getting rid of Title 10 and having one military with air, land, and sea capabilities. Talk about wasting money.
Here's my soapbox moment over this media chaos over who's to blame for the mess that is Louisiana. Look people--whoever dropped the ball, dropped it. Let's try and get all that we can in there and fix the problem at hand and stop with the finger pointing.
Let me clarify something too that the media is totally botching. From the military and legal perspective, the National Guard is activated under Title 32 of the US Code by state governors in cases of disaster relief, unless the National guard hasn't already been activated as reserve units overseas (as in this case of the those already sent to Iraq). It's the state governor's role to call them in and it's the state's money that pays for them. Otherwise, multiple states' guards can be called in by the President under Title 10, which makes them active military at that point and no longer under the state governors' orders, so they legally can't do any police work, hence the big mess with the LA riots a while back.
My pain with Pres Bush and republicans in general is that by having a "small government" and reducing dollars going to improving the domestic situation when concentrating on foreign problems, we are looking at a weak, unfunded, and undeveloped state/federal structure for dealing with domestic disasters. If they want a protected happy homeland, how about pumping some funds into the homeland, huh?
My solution for the future--forget this state/federal crap. This isn't the civil war, and states do not need separate militias to defend their territories. The federal government should create a comprehensive system where the national guards are funded by the federal government, but housed in each state, and may be used by the federal government in a common defense of the homeland. In case of natural disaster, state governments should have the authority to call them immediately to do policing duties en masse. The guard should not be used as a reserve for active duty. That is what the Reserves are for.
I won't even get into my rampage about getting rid of Title 10 and having one military with air, land, and sea capabilities. Talk about wasting money.
9.05.2005
Vacant, with a hint of sadness. Like a drunk who's lost a bet.
Hate shopping weekends and mostly avoid them. Idiot masses have come out of the woodworks and wander about town like zombies who have already fed. And then they unleash their children. Their screaming, running, sugared-up children. Yesterday I felt like I was in some videogame where I had to wander through a maze full of alien queens unleashing swarms of their brood.
Only I didn't have various weapons in my arsenal and unlimited ammo. Damn.
I am not antisocial and agoraphobic on my own. People make me this way.
Hate shopping weekends and mostly avoid them. Idiot masses have come out of the woodworks and wander about town like zombies who have already fed. And then they unleash their children. Their screaming, running, sugared-up children. Yesterday I felt like I was in some videogame where I had to wander through a maze full of alien queens unleashing swarms of their brood.
Only I didn't have various weapons in my arsenal and unlimited ammo. Damn.
I am not antisocial and agoraphobic on my own. People make me this way.
9.02.2005
Oh hell no.
An "interesting" article from today's Washington Post. Really really dislike the implications. I'm not ignoring racism or "reverse" racism, but I am ignoring the claims that people are marked for disaster because of their skin color and that aid has been slow because the victims are black.
Don't make this a racial issue. Disasters are not determined by color. True that most that suffer are the poor, but the poor are not all of one color. (*cough* indian ocean tsunami--over 300,000 killed, entire country in ruins)
*amendment*
Maybe the above article was just badly written--regardless it didn't portray the issues very well. This one is much better. And it wouldn't hurt to see Pres. Bush down there helping out--as if he would. Wouldn't that be a story--"President Bush arrives via helicopter in ground zero New Orleans and has been shot by looters--was it because he was an ineffectual President, a selfish rich idiot, or just plain white?"
An "interesting" article from today's Washington Post. Really really dislike the implications. I'm not ignoring racism or "reverse" racism, but I am ignoring the claims that people are marked for disaster because of their skin color and that aid has been slow because the victims are black.
Don't make this a racial issue. Disasters are not determined by color. True that most that suffer are the poor, but the poor are not all of one color. (*cough* indian ocean tsunami--over 300,000 killed, entire country in ruins)
*amendment*
Maybe the above article was just badly written--regardless it didn't portray the issues very well. This one is much better. And it wouldn't hurt to see Pres. Bush down there helping out--as if he would. Wouldn't that be a story--"President Bush arrives via helicopter in ground zero New Orleans and has been shot by looters--was it because he was an ineffectual President, a selfish rich idiot, or just plain white?"