30 May, 2007

I Got WHAT Now?

Ah. Late night movies on Turner Classics. Sit back, relax, and watch the film noir roll through.

So I see this test on OK Cupid. (Yes. Another one. Go away.) The Classic Leading Man Test!

Do I get Marlon Brando? Cary Grant? Or even (Oh-Please-God-Of-Ego-Boosting-Be-Kind-To-Me!) Bogey Himself?

Nope.

Your Score: Jimmy Stewart

You scored 21% Tough, 14% Roguish, 47% Friendly, and 19% Charming!

You are the fun and friendly boy next door, the classic nice guy who still manages to get the girl most of the time. You're every nice girl's dreamboat, open and kind, nutty and charming, even a little mischievous at times, but always a real stand up guy. You're dependable and forthright, and women are drawn to your reliability, even as they're dazzled by your sense of adventure and fun. You try to be tough when you need to be, and will gladly stand up for any damsel in distress, but you'd rather catch a girl with a little bit of flair. Your leading ladies include Jean Arthur and Donna Reed, those sweet girl-next-door types.

Next up: Mr. Colfax Goes To Washington! It's A Wonderful Post! Bell, Book, And Blogger! Two Wrote Together!

Okay. I'll stop now.

[Turn Signal: Mr. (I Got Katharyn Hepburn) Lady]

28 May, 2007

Going Home

Cindy Sheehan is leaving the Democratic Party.
You have completely failed those who put you in power to change the direction our country is heading. We did not elect you to help sink our ship of state but to guide it to safe harbor.
Honestly, I feel nothing but an obscenely guilty pleasure at this pronouncement. Dear Mother Sheehan has been pushing this party even further away from the center than ever before, and even faster than Rush Limbaugh ever dragged the Republicans to the political right. (Yes, dear reader. There is an insult in there somewhere. Exactly who it is directed towards, however, is up for debate.) Her constant beating of the drum has, over time, become the same sound as the drumbeat emanating from the White House, only on an opposing wavelength. The only people that have ever truly taken her seriously were the ones that were already true believers and fellow travelers, while the rest of us in the Democratic Party sat there and rolled our collective eyes whenever Dear Mother opened her mouth.

And yet, I must thank her. Not for Camp Casey. Not for being against the enormity on the Euphrates. Not even for telling Speaker Pelosi to shove it where the sun doesn't shine. Instead, I must thank her for helping me to see what is happening with my party and how it is beginning to betray its bedrock principles.

And I just know that you are sitting there, scratching your heads, asking yourselves, "Dude, how the heck did you reach this? Which logical limb did you take a flying leap off of this time?"

Let me show you why it really is a guilty pleasure, beyond the definition of obscenity.

With this send-off letter, Cindy only shows that she does as much to continue the Republican viewpoint on Iraq as the White House Press Office, to wit, she kept on calling it a war. As I have been saying for almost 18 months now, this is not a war. She and the rest of the anti-armed-conflict Democrats keep helping the current Administration's constant drumbeat by calling it such.

And, by doing so, this party continues to play the wrong cards. It is a constant talking point out of the Congressional Majority Leaders' offices that the voters sent the Republicans a message that they were tired of the "War In Iraq" whenever they butt heads with the White House. That they wanted a change. That they weren't satisfied with "hold the course" anymore. So why do they continue to use the White House talking point, the same one that Alberto Gonzales could not let stand while under oath in front of the Senate in 2006?

There was not a war declaration, either in connection with Al Qaida or in Iraq. It was an authorization to use military force.

I only want to clarify that, because there are implications. Obviously, when you talk about a war declaration, you’re possibly talking about affecting treaties, diplomatic relations. And so there is a distinction in law and in practice. And we’re not talking about a war declaration. This is an authorization only to use military force.

If my fellow Democrats are serious about ending the debacle on the Tigris, we need to stop helping the Administration sell the policies we claim to despise. We are not at war with Iraq. We have never been at war with Iraq. We have someone calling himself a "War President" without any silly technicalities such as an actual war. And we on the left side of the double-yellow-line keep helping him say that whenever we stand up against the "war" in Iraq.

And the reason my party has done this is simple. The Democratic Party, especially their most vocal supporters on the progressive left, does not want to break with politics as usual. Why? Because politics as usual is precisely what they are counting on to support their policies and personal agendas, especially now that the Democrats have taken control of both chambers of Congress. After all, you cannot use the boat if you rock it too much. It is in the Democrats vested interest to keep the vested interests in play. And they have done so.

Those who I call the "Honest Republicans", such as bloggers John Cole and Robert Lee Ray as well as many prominent moderate Republican families, have either broken or are threatening to break from what the current ultra-hardcore neo-conservative movement that the modern Republican Party has become. Why? Because the GOP has broken away from their traditional position of a small and responsible government. Because the single-issue supporters within the GOP have all but subsumed the platform. Because the GOP believes more in the Conservative Cause than it does in the American Constitution.

And I regret that I am starting to see the same thought process within the Democratic Party. We were once the party for the people, not the special interests. We were once the party of hard questions, not easy escapes. We were once the party of grand visions, not short-sighted maneuvers. We were once the party of fixing what was broken, not throwing temporary patches over the holes.

The current Democratic Party is no longer the party of John Fitzgerald Kennedy and Franklin Delano Roosevelt, any more than the current Republican Party is the party of Abraham Lincoln and Theodore Roosevelt. And both parties have traveled far afield from the principles of Thomas Jefferson, John Adams, Benjamin Franklin, Patrick Henry, John Hancock... No longer are the principles of the Founding Fathers to be found.

And that frightens me. To be perfectly honest, it scares the [CENSORED] out of me. And I have to ask myself one question: Am I reading the writing on the wall, or am I the one writing on the wall?

Am I really the only one on this side of the political divide that is seeing this pattern? Am I the only one that points towards our bedrock principles, both as Democrats and Americans, and screams to the winds "Why are we so far away?" Am I the lone voice crying in the wilderness?

Because if I have to, I will. This is not solely the party of Duncan Black and Amanda Marcotte and Markos Moulitsas ZĂșniga, or of Hillary Clinton and John Edwards and Barack Obama.

This is my party too. And if I have to fight for my place in the Democratic Party, then perhaps it is true. The Democratic Party will no longer be the Democratic Party when it betrays its most basic foundation principle: a place where all voices have the right to be heard.

I will be heard.

I will not suffer in silence.

I will dissent.

Until the end of the world.

Truly, the reason why I feel guilty about this is because Cindy Sheehan no longer is willing to fight for the same thing. And the reason why I am afraid is that the party just does not care any more. That it no longer exists to represent our views, our politics, our opinions... But instead, it exists only for itself. And the day that this becomes true, than this will no longer be my party. And when that day comes, will I have the intestinal fortitude to leave it to die? Or will I pull the plug myself?

If that is not of the Platonic Form of obscene thought, I do not want know what is.

Carpe jugulum.

[Linked by The Flannel Avenger]

22 May, 2007

Snark Warning

We were told that, if the Democrats win, there would be a wave of terrorist-style Improvised Explosive Devices placed all around the country. And they were right!

Darned religious terrorists! Fight them in Iraq so we don't have to fight them here!

[Snark: Insty]

Now if you'll excuse me, I'm still trying to make heads-or-tails out of that torturous conglomeration of an immigration bill. Definitive insert-head-in-monitor time here.

10 May, 2007

Eleven Things I Learned...

... while working at a gas station on Colfax Avenue, hereby distilled for your educational purposes.
  1. There is no such thing as "common" courtesy anymore. When you are just running into the store to pick up a pack of cigarettes, it is apparently perfectly acceptable to park a) across an entire driveway or b) directly behind someone who is trying to pull away from the gas pump or c) at the red light across the street, followed by d) loudly demanding police presence when someone complains about you doing any of the above while refusing to move an inch until the police arrive due to unnamed "threats" made against you. This does not make for a pleasant discussion with the nice officers when they arrive. You have been warned.
  2. People will consume their illicit pharmaceuticals of choice in the oddest places. Inside dumpsters. Inside bathrooms. Directly in front of the store. Waiting in line at the store. There is truly little shame to be found in an addict.
  3. Those strange people that walk blithely up to you and ask "What kind of cologne do you wear?" are pure evil and should be taken immediately away from the human species before they cause irreparable harm to society. Never mind. It's too late.
  4. Yelling at the clerk about the high price of gasoline is a guaranteed way to be short-changed and/or double-charged. Clerks don't make enough money to deal with that and will take their vengeance upon you in any way possible, with the standard caveat that you will cause the next ten to fifteen customers to also be short-changed and/or double-charged to help them learn not to be near a clerk that is within 10 seconds of biting someone's head off. You have been warned.
  5. When you use foul language at a clerk for enforcing the pay-before-pumping policy, especially one which is clearly displayed on two signs for each pump, expect the clerk to enforce the other sign with reads "We reserve the right to refuse service to anyone." If so, don't worry. There is another station down the street. You have been warned.
  6. Some people will steal anything that is not nailed down. And if they can pry it up, it's not nailed down. Have you ever seen someone try to run out of a convenience store while carrying the microwave? Enough said.
  7. When some local politician says the words "economic redevelopment" in relation to your specific vicinity of employment, it is to be considered a code-phrase for "Polish your resume, button-pusher, 'cause it ain't your development." (The land where my store was located will be part of a brand-new Hilton hotel to be opened within a year. Not a joke.)
  8. "Think about how stupid the average person is. And then realize that half of them are stupider than that." George Carlin is 100% accurate with this statement. Displays of actual intelligence among the general public are, regretfully, less common than displays of "common" courtesy.
  9. There is no success to be found while arguing with a sign that reads "CLOSED". Yet people will attempt it anyways, sometimes for ten minutes at a stretch. Then, when you point out to them that they could have walked across the street and already purchased their beer and/or cigarettes from the liquor store in the time they took to yell at both you and your unyielding door, be prepared for you to be called the stupid one. Schadenfreude at its absolute purest.
  10. Should you interrupt a... um... "young-at-heart person of negotiable affection" in the middle of... um... "assisting a gentleman with his weekly high colonic" in your public restroom and then proceed to eject both individuals from the property, followed immediately by said prostitute standing in the middle of the intersection to scream out a long series of vulgarities in 4 different languages while waving around an enema bag, and all you do is turn around to a complete stranger, shrug your shoulders, and say "Another day in the life on Colfax," you are officially too jaded to live and should be removed from the gene pool before you cause irreparable damage to society. (Or get a blog and cause still more damage.)
  11. When you threaten a clerk with the words "I will have your job for this!" after allegedly poor customer service solely due to restrictions of company policy, do not be surprised to find the clerk taking off their work shirt and handing it to you saying "Then take it." No clerk makes enough to deal with that, and it really is funny to see the look on someone's face go from furious to petrified in two seconds flat. In fact, it can make a clerk's entire week.
I constantly tell people that my job was almost exactly like the one in the movie Clerks and the only differences were that a) no one gave me back massages, b) there was no place to play hockey, and c) Jay and Silent Bob were two ugly transvestite prostitutes. But in reality, it was a LOT worse.

03 May, 2007

Keeping Yourself Busy

A piece of wisdom for you. (Even though most of you know this one already.) After becoming unemployed, for any reason, the one thing that is both the most important and the most difficult to do is to stay busy.

On my part, I try. I finally have time to sit and do many of the things that I want to do. Winning a game of Civilization 4 at the Hero level. Finally finish the //.hack series on the PS2. Re-read Daniel C. Dennett's Darwin's Dangerous Idea and try to wrap my mind around the entire last section. Get started with spring cleaning around the apartment.

(You will note that I haven't started looking for a new job yet. I see this week as being unpaid vacation time, thank you very much. That and, until my last paycheck comes in the mail, I don't even have enough money to take the bus so that I can find a job. Six of one, half dozen of the other.)

Well, it looks to me that I'm not the only one that has been doing this under recent days.

All of those staffers for the former GOP congressional majorities had to turn around and do something, right?

First there was Conservapedia, which was created because we darned liberals keep editing out their changes to the Bill Clinton page that equate him with Beelzebub (However, calling Hillary Rodham the Bride of Lucifer... That one I do myself.), hence the true liberal bias of the Wikipedia system.

Setting the knee-jerk snark reflex aside, quickly take a look at the entries for the hitherto unknown controversy surrounding the 22nd Amendment to the Constitution of the United States. With the Wikipedia entry, plenty of information is given. With the Conservapedia entry, however, a bare minimum of data is offered, strictly keeping to the actual description of the Amendment itself.

With this small exception. First, the sentence from the Wiki.
The United States Congress passed the amendment on March 21, 1947. It was ratified by the requisite number of states on February 27, 1951.
And the closest sentence as found in the Conservapedia entry:
This was passed by a Republican Congress in 1947 and ratified by the states in 1951.
Amazing. The political party in power when the amendment was passed is more important than the myriad details regarding precisely how the process was completed and the continued effects of the amendment to this day. I never would have thought that way.

Come to think of it, I still don't.

And now there's two more entries into the GOP Keeping Busy files:

As with Wiki, YouTube has been considered to be part and parcel of the evil systemic liberal bias, if not a true anti-conservative bias, primarily once Senator Allen's "Macaca" moment gained national prominence and thorough exploration on YouTube. Also featured prominently are such anti-conservative diatribes as clips from the Bill Maher and Jon Stewart shows. Hence the creation of a conservative response: QubeTV.

And immediately, there is a problem with their thesis. In a prominent banner ad at the top of the page, as seen in the picture below, it features a video by Michelle Malkin (My liberal readers will be more familiar with her if i use Duncan Black's racial slur of a nickname. However, this is a family-friendly blog, and I don't do that kind of thing here.) regarding the religious-based censorship that certain factions of the Islamic religion encourage.


Only one problem with this... It's not actually banned by YouTube.



Charlie and Jeff are not really off to a good start if a single registered user can get the true facts of the matter in under 4 minutes.

(EDIT: 05.31.07 0016. That embedded video was removed for, and I quote, "terms of use violations". This is what YouTube usually says when they take a video down before receiving an infringement notice from the copyright holder, just in case it does violate copyright, and Google gets a love-letter from Michelle Malkin's lawyers asking them for a court date. Still an example of sloppy fact-checking on Charlie and Jeff's parts.)

And finally comes something that I fully agree with: The Majority Accountability Project. (Side snark: The Two Mikes have their introductory video based through... YouTube. I guess someone didn't get the memo.)

The basic premise from The Two Mikes is sound. We, in the collective sense, have been merrily burrowing our way through just about everything that the GOP-led Congress did over the last 6 years. Travel records. FEC files. Obscure amendments slipped in at the last minute. Speeches. Contributions. PAC and Foundation creation. The list goes on and on as to what they were doing that we didn't like.

Now it's our turn under the microscope. Fair enough. There is a reason why the phrase "honest politician" is on the oxymoron list, and Democrats are no less susceptible to the corrupting influence of power than Republicans are. (Case in point.) And should they succeed in bringing a level of accountability to politics in general, even in a temporary fashion, I will stand there and shake their hands in broad daylight.

Unless, when the inevitable day comes that the Democratic majority fades into the sunset, they change their tune. So to The Two Mikes: Quis custodiet ipsos custodes?

It really is a good thing to keep yourself busy.

26 April, 2007

Got Leech?

This is probably one of the most disturbing Public Service Announcements I have ever seen.



I predict this will have the same effectiveness as when your parents asked you "If all your friends were jumping off a bridge, would you do it?"

Of course, that question always had the same answer. "I dunno. I guess."

Impressionable youngsters will always have a cavalier viewpoint regarding stupid things, regardless of whether those stupid things be drugs, extreme sports, gasoline cans, or sticking leeches on themselves. Simply calling it stupid doesn't do a bit of good, as most kids have not yet reached their age of mortality.

The young know they're going to live forever.

Older folks (meaning those past the font of wisdom that generally comes after turning 25 or so) know their mortality all too well.

So while pointing out the stupidness of various activities might seem to be a good thing from an adult/mortality-aware perspective, the simple act of pointing out the stupidest things that a young person could do will only accomplish one thing: make them wonder what all the fuss is about. Which will cause, I believe, only an increase in interest as to precisely what the heck all these old farts are babbling about which, in turn, provides for an increase in those attempting said stupid things. (NOTE: I believe this to be true. I have absolutely zero concrete evidence to back up this belief. Please read this parenthetical comment as a disclaimer to that effect.)

Listening to my adult nature, I see this advertisement and think "Damn. That's some pretty good thinking on their part. Kudos to Above The Influence."

Listening to my inner kid, I see this advertisement and think "Cool! I wonder where I can get leeches at 8:30 on a weekday!"

22 April, 2007

Going After Ben & Jerry's

I have a problem here.

Everything that keeps infuriating me keeps going away, never to bother me again.

Shenanigans with the Department of Justice, going over the heads of Senators to appoint political hacks to represent the United States in a court of law? One bite. No worries.

24/7 coverage of Virginia Tech students with microphones shoved up their noses, constantly reminding them of exactly what they need to put behind them? One bite. Not a problem.

I get laid off on Sunday? One bite. Big deal.

Ben & Jerry's new Vermonty Python flavor is ruining my blogging career. How can I be outraged and constantly bloviate with this wonderful luscious wonderful...

Excuse me. My pint just ran out. Life sucks again.

Unless...

Yes! Success! Alleluia! Enough for one more spoonful!

Life is good.

(I really do get laid off on the 29th. In which case, I won't be able to afford any more B&J to keep me in bliss. More details to follow.)

20 April, 2007

In A Word...

Ezra:
America: Do you really need caffeinated soap?
YES!
Do you really need to wash with something that gives you a stimulant intake to two cups of coffee?
YES!
Meanwhile, I'm totally patenting my idea for a fine caffeinated foam you spray on laptop keyboards so we absorb stimulants in direct proportion to how hard we're working.
YES!!!

This has been an episode of Stupid Answers To Stu... Wait, I can't use that anymore. It's someone else's intellectual property.

12 April, 2007

Stop! Thief!

It doesn't matter what intellectual field you are in. Professor. (Ward Churchill) Columnist. (Ann Coultier) And now artist Todd Goldman.

Plagiarism is wrong. Period. Ad infinitum. Ad astra. Ad nauseum.

And this goes beyond just one isolated incident. Also, this is a man who depends on his notoriety to drive sales. Remember the "Boys Are Stupid" shirt controversy? Same guy.

Refuse to purchase anything produced by David And Goliath.

Talentless hacks depend on the gullibility of the public in order to make a living. So let's cut his off at the root.

[Turn Signal: Two Lumps]

10 April, 2007

I Am Seriously In Trouble

I've been single for... Well, let's just say that, to remember my last relationship, even God would have to look it up in a reference book.

John Tierney's latest column fails to inflate my optimism.
They found that a 5-foot-8 man was just as successful in getting dates as a 6-footer if he made more money — precisely $146,000 a year more. For a 5-foot-2 man, the number was $277,000.
I'm 5-foot-4. Which, by extrapolation, would mean I need another $240k per annum.

Yup. Ain't gonna happen any time soon.

But at least I'll always have the Internet. Even though the last panel of this strip sums up my life rather well.

[Turn Signal: You Know Who]

09 April, 2007

Home Run

Jeff "Goldmember" Goldstein hits one into the upper deck.
That blacks trend overwhelmingly against same-sex marriage—and tend to view homosexuals with distrust, if we are to take the anecdotal evidence presented here as remotely reliable—is an uncomfortable problem for progressives who push identity politics—particularly given that their support of gay rights is often framed as a civil rights struggle (when what is it as issue is dispute over policy, not dispute over civil “rights"). Which makes it unsurprising that the tension between blacks and activist gays is something that identity politics proponents would just as soon ignore, provided they can maintain the black vote and rely upon black pastors to spread the gospel of Democratic party politics, even if the trade off is a certain social bigotry, presented in the trappings of “conservative” religious practice, against another interest group securely in the pocket of the Democrats.

George Bush was vilified for appearing at Bob Jones University—the idea being that his appearing at a private conservative Christian university meant he necessarily supported (even if it was only with a wink and a nod) all of their social policies, and so could be painted with a racist, “Christianist” brush. Which is why we heard so much about what “lessons” we were to draw from Bush’s stumping at a school that had a ban on interracial dating (a ban it lifted in the wake of Bush’s visit).

Yet we seldom hear the same kind of criticism from “progressives” when Democratic politicians visit black Baptist churches. Are Bill and Hillary anti-gay? Is Edwards?

Thank every deity known to man that I agree with Jeff on this one. 'Cause I'll be damned if I could argue against it.

And every single Democratic strategist out there should be down on their knees, praying that Goldstein is never part of a national campaign. With thoughts like this, it would prove difficult for their 2008 aspirations if they have to argue against this every single day for 18 months straight.

04 April, 2007

N1NJ4 K1TT3NZ

I think I have a new entry in the "Go Straight" blogroll cat-egory.


The humor is lowbrow. Very lowbrow. Hell, it's so lowbrow, it's practically mustache humor. Maybe even goatee. Might end up as low as bikini wax humor.

Should go over awesome with more than one of you.

Check out I CAN HAS CHEEZBURGER for yourselves.

[EDIT: 04.04.07 0131] I'm still clicking through the "Previous posts" buttons and... I can't stop laughing.

29 March, 2007

No Comment Needed

Just read Proph's post from yesterday.

Presented without comment.

27 March, 2007

CENSORED

There are times when my refusal to be vulgar on this blog are more than just highly constrictive.

This is one of those times.
But I'm not. I'm at home, with the doors locked, terrified. For the last four weeks, I've been getting death threat comments on this blog. But that's not what pushed me over the edge. What finally did it was some disturbing threats of violence and sex posted on two other blogs... blogs authored and/or owned by a group that includes prominent bloggers.
Please continue to read Kathy's post on your own time.

But turn your attention specifically to this:

It's the threat that causes fear.

It's the threat that leads you to a psychiatrist and tranquilizers just so you can sleep without repeating the endless loop of your death by:

* throat slitting
* hanging
* suffocation
and don't forget the sexual part...

I have cancelled all speaking engagements.

I am afraid to leave my yard.

I will never feel the same. I will never be the same.

I am beyond angry. Beyond furious. Even beyond volcanic explosions of wrath, and gore, and destruction, and chaos, descending upon the heads of these unrighteous pigs that debase the very name of humanity by continuing to possess basic metabolic functions.

No. Instead I've gone to the dangerous place, where everything is calm while the storm rages around you, of it yet not in it.

So to those who find these things to be not vile, not inexcusable, not reprehensible, not a debasement of the foundation of our culture, I have only one thing to say:

Let that which you have done to others be visited upon you, threefold times threefold.

Carpe jugulum.

24 March, 2007

Can't See The Forest For The Woodwinds

I've just found my second "Bash The Local Democrats" moment of the year. Emphases mine.
A Republican lawmaker urged colleagues to adopt rigorous math and science high school graduation requirements Thursday - or watch Colorado youngsters lose a global race for high-paying tech jobs.

"The world is rapidly shifting to a technology-based economy, and if we don't meet the challenge, our kids will be left behind," Rep. Rob Witwer, R-Genessee, warned the House Education Committee.
...
Witwer and co-sponsor Sen. Josh Penry, R-Fruita, had attempted to gain support of skeptical Democrats by scaling back Senate Bill 131.

Instead of requiring four years of math to graduate, they asked for three years of math and science. The bill also would have allowed sophomores who test well on those subjects to opt out of junior- and senior-year math and science courses.
...
Committee Chairman Michael Merrifield, a former music teacher, opposed the bill, saying it would create an unbalanced educational system by robbing funding and students' time for liberal arts instruction.
For those of you in the Denver area, the loud sound you just heard was me yelling obscenities at my monitor. For those not in the area... Well, sound travels slowly, so it'll get to you later on.

Three years of math classes is not a difficult step to take. I had to endure those in the abysmal educational system of California. Three years of science classes is not a difficult step to take. I had to endure those in the abysmal educational system of California. And an option to pare it down to two years? Even less strenuous.

And what does Mr. Merrifield do? He shoots it down by saying it doesn't leave enough time for the "liberal arts"? Or, as the Denver Public Schools call them "elective studies"? The same DPS that already requires that minimum level for science and math coursework from their graduates? And the same DPS that overall ranks "at or above" the state average? (And to Denverites, that is either a welcome sign or a very scary concept.)

I believe it is time for Mr. Merrifield to turn his ears away from his beloved music classes and face a different music. I went through the same basic years of instruction that Mr. Witwer wants here in Colorado, and I still can't do college high-level math or science courses. I've even had a few extra pieces of coursework thrown in for good measure. I can hang on by sheer stubbornness and eke out a C (If I'm lucky. Which is exactly what I was when I accidentally took Medical Microbiology, the pre-med requirement, instead of Introductory Microbiology thanks to kicking the section number during registration. When you celebrate getting a D on a midterm, you know it's a tough class. Don't laugh.), but I can't truly understand them. And I fall pretty much at the average of the pack when it comes to my understanding of the "liberal arts" as I was well-grounded from my high school classes in theatre, music appreciation, and pottery.

(You're laughing, aren't you. Fine. In that midterm I mentioned, the grade spread was 1 A, 1 B, 7 Cs, 5 Ds, and 17 Fs. So getting a D was ahead of the curve, thank you very much.) (Oh. You're laughing because of the pottery class. Okay. Go ahead and laugh.)

A broad understanding of science and math are just as important as a broad liberal-arts background. Liberal arts shows us how rich our society is. Science and math are how our society got to be so rich.

Given my druthers, I'll pick science and math. Being able to understand is important, but not quite as important as being able to contribute.

And Mr. Merrifield shows that he just doesn't get it.
"My contention is by forcing every child into this narrow curriculum, we are not making them more innovative, we are not making them more creative," the Colorado Springs Democrat said, citing a national report that calls a well-rounded education the "passport to a job in which creativity and innovation are the key to a good life."
Mr. Merrifield? Continuing the lack of emphasis in science and math is not going to get kids those kinds of jobs in the future. In order to be creative and innovative in a field, you first need to have a thorough understanding of the base concepts. Only then can you see what is innovative versus what is ordinary.

So unless we want people to be innovative in the field of "liberal arts", I suggest we widen our horizons just a smidgen.

[Turn Signal: Grandmaster Jeffy G]