| Just a Reminder That I'm Still Posting . . . |
[Aug. 1st, 2007|03:36 pm] |
| [ | Current Location |
| | work | ] |
| [ | mood |
| |  recumbent | ] |
| [ | music |
| | quiet office | ] |
. . . at inadequate.net.
Mostly about boring stuff no one cares about, but some personal stuff here, here and here, among others. |
|
|
| |
[Apr. 16th, 2006|06:12 pm] |
Rowhouse 'Hood
You scored 27 out of 40 on urban-rural and 29 out of 40 land intensity. | People know you as: The Bohemian Gentrifier
Quote: "That crack house just needed a little paint."
Your score indicates that you are a city-dweller of the old-school. You like a dense, finely grained neighborhood with restaurants, churches and brothels all on the same block. Although you've never spoken to him personally, you know that guy Eddie down the street is a pimp and you're sure to tell your lame suburban friends about him at every opportunity, just to freak them out.
The bad news is that as more and more people like you move into your neighborhood it gradually becomes less cool and more expensive. Enjoy things while you can, because in 5 years you're going to have to move to the next 'hood uptown.
Examples of places you should live: Baltimore, Philadelphia
All Categories
Secluded Hideaway / Farm or Ranch / Small Town / Little City / Suburb / Streetcar Suburb / Rowhouse 'Hood / Downtown Loft |  |
My test tracked 2 variables How you compared to other people your age and gender: | You scored higher than 61% on urban-rural | | You scored higher than 80% on land intensity |
| |
|
|
| |
[Nov. 20th, 2005|08:09 pm] |
| You Are Mud Pie | 
You're the perfect combo of flavor and depth
Those who like you give into their impulses |
|
|
|
| |
[Nov. 14th, 2005|10:29 pm] |
| Your Inner Child Is Sad | 
You're a very sensitive soul.
You haven't grown that thick skin that most adults have.
Easily hurt, you tend to retreat to your comfort zone.
You don't let many people in - unless you've trusted them for a long time. |
Other entries at: http://willpate.austin360blogs.com. |
|
|
| |
[Oct. 6th, 2005|12:12 am] |
You are a Theory Slut. The true elite of the
postmodernists, you collect avant-garde
Indonesian hiphop compilations and eat journal
articles for breakfast. You positively live
for theory. It really doesn't matter what
kind, as long as the words are big and the
paragraph breaks few and far between.
What kind of postmodernist are you!?
brought to you by Quizilla |
|
|
| Austin City Limits stuff |
[Sep. 12th, 2005|11:53 pm] |
|
New update entitled ACL Ambivalence on my new blog. |
|
|
| Why Not a Three-State Solution? |
[Aug. 26th, 2005|03:35 pm] |
Here's something I just wrote. Comments?
Why Not a Three-State Solution?
An important sticking point in the rush to an agreement over the Iraqi Constitution is whether or not the heavily Shiite southern region will be allowed a similar degree of automony as Iraqi Kurdistan in the north. The majority of known Iraqi oil reserves are located in the north and south. Sunni-dominated central Iraq representatives on the constitution-writing committee are worried that any federal system of government will deprive them of an equal share of oil revenues. Those living in countries without oil reserves might well ask, "So what?" Indeed, the question is more important than its phrasing might suggest.
A major tenet of democracy is sovereign states' right to self-determination. Iraq -- as a geopolitical entity -- is the artificial creation of the Anglo victors of the First World War. Its distinct ethnic communities were lumped together willy-nilly to satisfy the spoils-of-war hunger of imperial Europe. Thus, the current civil war we are witnessing may be the first kicks of newborn democracy; not the writing of this constitution. The question then morphs from "So what?" to "So why are we trying to keep these people in one state?"
This is where we leave the realm of fact and interpretation and enter into imagination and theoretical thinking. Even I am not fully convinced of the foolhardiness of this idea, but it does deserve debate.
The northern region of Iraq, also known as Iraqi Kurdistan, has enjoyed a wide degree of autonomy since the Gulf War in 1991. With US- and British-enforced no-fly zones protecting the area from attacks by Saddam Hussein, the region was able to modernize and enjoy a relative level of safety and comfort. Aside from a Saddam-funded terrorist named al Zarqawi who, with his group Ansar al-Islam (Helpers of Islam), staged low-level terrorist attacks against the Kurds.
Iraq's Shiite-dominated southern region has, since the invasion, been a fairly quiet area -- aside from some early demonstrations by the young firebrand cleric Sadr and his militia, who have now joined the political process (but kept their arms) -- patroled by British military forces. Both Iraqi Shiites and Kurds were violently oppressed by Saddam Hussein and his almost-exclusively Sunni government.
Iraqi's Sunnis, centered in the middle of the country where little known oil exists, are understandably frightened by the possibility that Kurds and Shiites in the streets and on the constitution-writing committee may be aiming for retribution for their years of suffering. Splitting Iraq and keeping the oil wealth for themselves, the Shiites and Kurds will exact revenge, the Sunnis think. Iraqi Sunnis are concerned that they will lose out on Iraq's oil wealth and be relegated to a poor minority status.
Well, why not? This isn't intended as offensive, but given that the country's borders were arbitrarily drawn and that a country has the right to determine whether or not it should remain in its current structure, why exactly do the Sunnis deserve the benefits of oil-rich areas?
As much of the world knows, there are other avenues to economic success. Sunnis had exclusive access to higher education, technological training and governmental experience under Hussein's rule. Why not use those knowledge and skills to shore up other industries in the region? There seems to be no reason they can't use a separate Sunni area to foster their own modern, non-oil-based economy, government and society. Should Sunni insurgents desire a theocratic government, they can have one. If moderate Sunnis honestly believe in a secular government, the insurgency will become an issue they have to overcome -- just like Saudi Arabia, Afghanistan, Pakistan, Indonesia and other Sunni-dominated countries struggling with internal fundamentalist elements.
The Kurdish north could continue its path to modernization and security. Iran worries that an independent Kurdistan could incite the growing automony movement in its southern region and further destabilize their border with Kurdistan (Iraq). How do the Kurdish demand for democracy and self-determination from an enemy theocratic state hurt the United States? And if the international community doesn't like it -- hell, we didn't seem to concerned about what they thought when we initially went into Iraq. Why worry about that now?
Shiites in the south could begin focusing on reconstruction and working through their internal problems, as well. There are already growing rifts within the Shiite community, and a separate state for them to work those issues out seems logical. Otherwise, Iraq risks fostering both a Sunni-led insurgency and a Shiite civil war. Or, in short, a double civil war.
So what's wrong with the three-state solution in Iraq? Why not recognize the people's right to determine their own borders (for once), their own system of government and fight their own wars? These questions need to be answered. If only because the United States' may not have recognized that "regime change" in Iraq included removing Saddam Hussein's strong-arm tactics that ensured Iraq's survival in its current geopolitical form. |
|
|
| letter to the editor published in csmonitor today |
[Aug. 22nd, 2005|12:23 pm] |
My letter to the editor was published in The Christian Science Monitor today.
First, the column I was replying to:
Indian mascots and common courtesy
By Matthew J. Miller
SIOUX FALLS, S.D. - The National Collegiate Athletic Association (NCAA) announced this month it won't allow teams with Indian mascots to use those mascots in NCAA tournaments.
The NCAA also penalized Florida State for the use of its Seminole mascot. This action aroused passionate criticism. Florida Gov. Jeb Bush said the NCAA's action against Florida State was insulting. Others have joined him in this criticism.
Mascots are a source of pride, they argue - a tradition. This same argument, however, can be used to support any number of social injustices.
For example, it was tradition for blacks to sit in the back of buses. It was tradition to bar women from working outside the home. And mentally ill people were traditionally sent to live out their lives in institutions. Each of these "traditions" has been changed and society is better for it.
Breaking university traditions and causing some sentimental heartache for alumni is a small price to pay for showing respect to the Indian peoples.
But another, more substantive, argument against removing Indian mascots is that they are not really offensive.
"Norwegians don't complain about teams called the Vikings," is a common retort to arguments against Indian mascots.
Norwegians are not offended; therefore, proponents of this view reason, neither should Indians be offended.
This, however, presupposes Indians and Norwegians come from a common perspective and, therefore, are similarly offended. This presupposition is not true.
Norwegian people were not forcefully removed from their own lands time and again, nor were they slaughtered in large numbers by an army of superior power. Neither have they struggled to find a place in society.
They do not daily face alcoholism, poverty, and racism as Indians do. Because Indians and Norwegians come from different perspectives, we cannot assume that they should have similar attitudes about mascots.
The wounds of Indian defeats are still fresh. After all, the battle at Wounded Knee was fought only 110 years ago, and its memories remain in public consciousness.
Perhaps Indian warrior mascots are reminiscent of the horrific defeats suffered at the hands of white soldiers.
Perhaps the use of Indian mascots by predominantly white schools symbolizes a lack of control over their own cultural identity.
I am not certain I entirely understand why Indian mascots are offensive. Some names, like "Redskins," seem obviously offensive. Others, like Braves or Warriors, hardly seem offensive and even carry a tone of admiration.
I cannot fully understand what is offensive because I am not Indian.
I have, however, worked on Indian reservations. There I learned it is not my place to tell an Indian person whether he or she should be offended.
I, as a white male, am not privileged to decide what is or is not offensive for people of another race. The issue goes beyond race. It is one of common courtesy.
The bottom line is if a substantial group of Indian people is offended by a mascot, it should be changed.
Matthew J. Miller is a federal law-enforcement officer in Sioux Falls, S.D.
Now, my letter:
How to show native Americans respect
Matthew J. Miller's Aug. 16 Opinion piece, "Indian mascots and common courtesy," on the right of native Americans to decide whether or not the use of native American mascots by college sports teams is offensive is a beacon of fairness, reason and, as he says, common courtesy in a nation largely devoid of such values in its public discourse.
Mr. Miller displays an uncommon willingness to step back, recognize his own limitations and advocate for the best possible (and most reasonable) answer to an issue that has long been a flash point for racial tensions.
The United States could use more Matthew J. Millers.
William O. Pate II
Austin, Texas |
|
|
| |
[Aug. 21st, 2005|06:33 pm] |
Very Well-Rounded
You have:
70% SCIENTIFIC INTUITION and
62% EMOTIONAL INTUITION | | The graph on the right represents your place in Intuition 2-Space. As you can see, you scored above average on emotional intuition and above average on scientific intuition. (Weirdly, your emotional and scientific intuitions are equally strong.) |
|
Your Emotional Intuition
score is a measure of how well you understand people, especially their
unspoken needs and sympathies. A high score score usually indicates
social grace and persuasiveness. A low score usually means you're good
at Quake.
Your Scientific Intuition
score tells you how in tune you are with the world around you; how well
you understand your physical and intellectual environment. People with
high scores here are apt to succeed in business and, of course, the
sciences. |
| | |
My test tracked 2 variables How you compared to other people your age and gender: | You scored higher than 99% on Scientific | | You scored higher than 99% on Interpersonal |
| |
|
|
| that nagging feeling of inadequacy |
[Aug. 20th, 2005|02:36 pm] |
There always seems to be something nagging at me.
I look around and think that I'm on schedule. I'm doing what most people my age are doing. If I waste one night on beer, it's okay. If I sleep for a day, I can catch up tomorrow. I don't do either very often.
But beneath it all, almost like a biological imperative, something tells me that I should be doing more. I should be awake and reading and searching and writing and working . . . but I'm never sure exactly what it is I should be doing that I'm not. In all the reading and working and searching, what is it that I'm aiming for?
I have a wonderful girlfriend -- a wife -- and the best dog ever and a good job in a field I'm interested in and I go to school fulltime and I spend more time reading than in front of the television or computer (when I'm home), so why the nagging feeling that I'm not productive?
What is it that's bothering me? |
|
|
| |
[Aug. 18th, 2005|12:27 pm] |
Republican Bob Taft has become the first Ohio governor charged with a crime, accused of violating state ethics laws that he championed to his subordinates.
Someone needs to tell religious-right poobah J. Kenneth Blackwell, the Ohio Secretary of State and a gubernatorial candidate, that we're coming for him next. |
|
|
![[info]](http://p-stat.livejournal.com/img/userinfo.gif){kind=small}
inadequate_net's journal
