| What the hell, McAfee? |
[18 Jan 2009|04:07pm] |
I don't get virus protection programs. I know you're supposed to have one and it's a big deal if you don't and everything, but my dirty little secret is that I usually don't have one in place. Here's why: Every time I've installed virus protection on my computer, everything else on the computer has slowed to such a crawl that I would rather take my chances with a virus.
I've had a virus all of twice. The time it took me to format and reinstall everything was easily saved by the time I did not wait for my computer to clunk and grind its way through everything *else* I did when using it.
So, recently, I got McAfee free through my service provider and free is good, right? So, forgetting my past experiences and hoping that, now, with a considerably faster computer than I used to have, I installed it. But... same thing as always! It takes so long to get through doing things that... how is this not worse than the virus it is meant to protect me against?
|
|
| The Siege |
[04 Jan 2009|12:49pm] |
I rewatched this movie today, and found it very interesting. I watched it near the time it came out and hadn't much thought of it again until it came up on Hulu recently. So, I turned it on. I'm a sucker for Annette Benning and she plays this total TSL chick who's uber-competent and always seems to be a half-step ahead of the protagonist (Denzel Washington). She's full of secrets and ... basically just the sort of character I enjoy.
But, watching it now, 7+ years after the fall of the World Trade Center towers was a very interesting experience. It was nigh prescient in some ways and in others so wholly wrong about what was to come. Of course, the premise of the movie is the story of an FBI agent who is trying to solve a series of terrorist attacks in New York City and maneuver his way around an overbearing military presence, a secretive CIA (in the form of Ms. Benning) and the court of public opinion, of course, including politicians who are thinking more about what's going to win them re-election than what will be the right thing to do for the situation.
I think the movie does a decent job of outlining how this cycle of terrorism got started, if in a very simplified way, though I can forgive the simplification since there's only so much explaining the history of the US's interference in the Middle East that a movie that takes place in New York can carry. I also like the balance that Benning's character strikes between her passionate sympathy for the people of the region in light of the US actions there and her denouncement of criminal terrorist actions. The movie is also very careful not to make Muslims or people of Middle-East descent the bad guys. That's also a plus.
The fact that the movie was made in '98 and about the panic caused by terrorist attacks in NYC is sort of chilling in retrospect. Moreso when they get all the shots of the poignant shock and suffering of people when they realize over 600 were killed in one of the attacks. In some ways I sort of wonder why more people haven't brought up this movie much since the actual attacks, but then again it could be a difficult watch for anyone deeply affected by the attacks on 9/11/01. Also, I imagine the theme that *we created this* is harder to swallow in hindsight. People don't want to think about that.
However, so many things play out with such eerie similarity to what actually happened. The violations of human rights and the tenants of the constitution, the failures of intelligence, the illegal use of the military when the issue was, in essence, one of law enforcement... rendition, illegal detainment of young men for no other crime than their nationality. There's even a reference to water-boarding in the prisoner torture scene.
Here's what didn't play out like reality, and it made me sad. In the movie, people realize how wrong it is to persecute people of Middle-Eastern descent and that if them, why not us? There are shouts about how it could just as well be black people or white people or hispanic people. There is a dedication in the law enforcement agencies to overturn the injustices being done despite their own very personal losses. People protest the unnecessary military action in the movie in ways they have not in real life. No one's shouting too loud about the violations of human rights or the constitution in the real U.S. You know that old saying about those willing to sacrifice liberty for safety... hehe. So, that kind of bummed me out. I'd have liked to see the real thing come out a little more like the movie.
|
|
| Today I am a linkblog. |
[15 Nov 2007|03:18pm] |
I sort of have thoughts about it, but work is crazy and I wanted to post it before I forgot about it. It's sorta The Smoking Gun, but more grave, I suppose, and they've posted a document hundreds of pages long detailing the army's (Marine's?)operating procedures at Guantanamo Bay's military prison... or whatever they call it. Detainee center?
Anyway, the main site's been knocked down, but they've got mirrors.
Wiki Leaks dot org.
|
|
| Feminazi |
[12 Nov 2007|10:15am] |
|
Today, I commented on a popular feminist blog that... I would not be commenting on the blog! More significant, I guess, is why I said I wouldn't be commenting. Regularly over the past few days, there was a man coming to the blog, commenting and calling various people "feminazis". Someone else had made the point before me, but it was time to speak up and go, I guess.
The blog author wouldn't have put up with someone coming there and calling her an uppity bitch for her opinions, or a stupid cunt or any number of other "bad word" names, but over and over, she allows feminists be openly compared to genocidal fascists without comment! I mean, I can't much think of a worse insult. But, because it doesn't use "bad words", because it's some cutesy play on words, it gets a pass.
I said I wouldn't comment any longer because I didn't feel like respectful, safe communication could occur so long as the authors allowed that sort of abuse to go unchecked.
P.S. Michael got accepted into the special education program after a year of trying to get them to SEE that there's a fucking problem. Yay!
|
|
| Eventful week |
[20 Oct 2007|05:08pm] |
|
This week we found three orphaned kittens in our garage. They were cold, but alive and in very bad shape. None the less, we picked them up, washed them and warmed them up and fed them from tiny little bottles to try to keep them alive, but they didn't make it. It was all very sad.
One day this week I got a call from my friend, Krista, that Michael's school had called her to come get him because he'd been sick in the yard outside school and I hadn't answered the phone. So, I went and got him and he was fine by afternoon. But, my mother called to check on him this afternoon, because apparently they called her , as well.
Called Kathleen, the breeder we know (Kate used to date her son), to come give advice about the kittens, and when she came over she told the story about Animal control taking her cats from her. Looked it up online and this is her. I've been fostering a cat of hers for almost a year. She told me Animal control tried to get her to give up the names of the people who had her other cats, but that she wouldn't. I called the humane society to let them know I had one of them. I am hoping I might be able to get the cat spayed for free out of the deal. She's actually a pretty good cat, so we're going to keep her.
When Kathleen was at the house, though, it was really sort of creepy. She was roughhousing with the cat, poking at her and petting her too hard and the cat hissed and swatted at her. I have never seen this cat hiss at anyone for any reason, and I've let a three year old loose on her. It was pretty crazy. But, I guess that's what happens when you treat your pets with respect... they're nice to you in return. **Edited**
|
|
| A couple "OMG" moments today. |
[01 Aug 2007|03:08pm] |
|
First: I had a spider in my bra!!
I mean, it's alarming enough without embellishment, but I shall endeavor to horrify and amuse everyone. It was in my bra, while I was sitting at my desk at work. Here at the lab, we can't have any airborn chemicals, so when we have little friends around the lab, we pretty much just live with them or step on them. There was a cricket by my desk once and I actually had one of the analysts tell me "It's just a cricket, don't step on it."
But, I'm pretty okay, generally, with crawly friends, so this was okay. Until one of them took up residence on my person. So there I was freaking out with my hand down the front of my blouse, sort of freaking out and digging around in my cleavage. I thought Mark might die of hysterics.
Spider: 1
Diva: 0
Second one: <a href=http://www.earthsky.org/radioshows/51647/print-your-own-organic-solar-cell-someday target=new>Solar Cells you can print out from your home computer!</a>
|
|
| Still working on it |
[11 Apr 2007|07:26am] |
I'm finding that either it's a more difficult subject than I anticipated, or my powers of procrastination are just that overhwhelming. Part three of the three part essay thingy is about halfway done.
Meanwhile, though, check out Chris's website!
|
|
| Law Enforcement is Failing Us. |
[07 Apr 2007|06:21pm] |
This is a continuance of my response to this Guardian article. Part 2.
This issue of harassment online, and particularly for my purposes here harassment of women, inevitably brings up the cries of ‘freedom of speech’. There are always those people who want to say “Well, it is my RIGHT to say whatever I like” And often these words are followed by suggestions as to what the listener is supposed to be doing while the speaker is saying whatever he or she wishes. Things like, “You should learn to take a joke” or “Why don’t you stop making such a big deal of it?” or many others, I am certain. I’m sure I could sit here for a very long time thinking of things people have said to me when what they meant is “I wish you would stop saying things that make me feel guilty about my bad behavior.” I’ll leave the rest of them to your imaginations. But… to get back to the point… but IS it everyone’s right to say whatever they want to? Even on the ‘net? Well, see, just like it is in real life, your right to speak your mind ends at the point where it begins to infringe on another person’s rights. Their right, for instance, to feel safe. Their right to also speak without feeling as if they might be in danger for doing so. Clearly, the lines online get blurred about this sort of thing. We all know that if we see someone walking down the street, at work or at home, even, who is saying something we don’t like or agree with – or if we just don’t like the person for one reason or another – it is not, ever, acceptable to threaten to rape and murder them. Not acceptable to post pictures of them with a noose on their bedroom door, or even on your bedroom door if they or others are going to be seeing the picture. And why do we know this is clearly illegal and immoral? Why do even those who do not hold themselves to such a level of morality of just not threatening people because it’s not right know not to go around acting this way? Because they would get arrested if they did these things. Yes. It’s illegal to threaten violence against people in these ways. And that, ladies and gentlemen, is what the law is for – to regulate those who somehow don’t have that place in their brains that tells them when they’re infringing upon the rights of those around them. But, the law is failing us online. Technology is outpacing the ability of our legal system to talk about technology, or to maneuver within technology. It’s a relatively simple thing to find out where any given post on a website is coming from. Unless the person posting it is really good at hiding online, the server they posted to records their IP and usually displays it somewhere for the webmaster and IP addresses can be traced by anyone with access to a browser who knows how to spell Google. It would be a facile matter for a law enforcement agency to find out from a given server the address, telephone number and whatever other details the server might have, about a given user at a given time. “So, who was using 248.16.344.6 at 6PM on Tuesday? I have a subpoena here because whomever it was made threats of violence, and we need to check them out to make sure everyone’s safe.” Server logs = a digital trail. I’m betting it wouldn’t take too much of a crackdown, too many news stories about internet trolls who’ve made threats being hauled in before the message got out fairly broadly that this stuff won’t be tolerated, but it feels very much as if <i>nothing</I> is being done about it, other than reporting on the very blogs who are subjected to the negative behavior. Our law enforcement is failing us.
|
|
| Great Article in the Guardian |
[07 Apr 2007|03:59pm] |
Yesterday, I came across an article in the Guardian that should have shocked me, but sadly did not. (Just to get it out of the way, here is the link to the article. Go on and read it. I’ll wait.) Of course, I knew about all the various point covered in the article, as I have read about each incident separately around the blogs I read, many of which are feminist blogs. I heard about Jessica V.’s boobs and the study about women being harassed online and Ann Althouse and the other women who are right on board with their right wing oppressors (and, let’s be real here, it’s not as if the left wing of American politics has widely embraced feminist values, either). Yes, I’d even heard of Kathy Sierra and the campaign of threats and harassment against her. But, I never wrote about any of these things separately, because while I could see the trend, sure, I guess I needed the trend put together and placed under my nose to really tap into my righteous indignation. Or, maybe like everyone else, I needed to see someone who wasn’t “asking for it” for it to really hit home. I want to hit on three things, here. The first being how this trend really came into the spotlight and what that says about perceptions of the feminist movement – even within the feminist movement. The second point is where I believe law enforcement has failed women online, and what I believe should be done about it. The third point is where I think we, as internet users, are failing one another. My stress is on the third point, and since we feel most passionately about things that affect us directly, I’ll be applying this concept to the quarter of online that I most frequent: that is to say, in online chatrooms. But, first thing is first. Why did we wait to bring this issue out into the open until Kathy Sierra was harassed and driven out of the online life? That isn’t to say that I’ve never seen blog posts about this issue of online harassment of women (and, let’s face it, minorities), pointing out that the anonymous nature of the web acts as the white hood in a way much more effective than any racist, sexist or otherwise discriminator could have ever dreamed, but it was almost a footnote. Jessica was very outspoken during the incident where she was being harassed about her breasts (despite wearing a rather modest sweater… not that she deserved it whatever she’d chosen to wear), and noises were made here and there but… and this is a judgment call, I realize, but one I state pretty confidently based both on my reading of feminist blogs and my own experiences with this stuff… I just haven’t seen any real passion for the issue. But, then this woman who writes a non-issues related blog. She writes an innocuous but successful technology blog, and does speaking engagements on the subject. Bully for her. But, there were people online who were harassing and threatening her with, amongst other things, rape and murder in, I gather, graphic detail. Pictures of her were posted, her personal information… well, you can read it in the article. Her quitting blogging and canceling her speaking engagements has been pretty widely publicized, because she wasn’t speaking out about anything controversial and still attracted this kind of negative attention. Let me put this in other words, for the people in the cheap seats: Women who express opinions and stand up for themselves and their issues online are asking to be harassed, so it’s not as big a deal when it happens to them. This whole “She was asking for it” is the oldest story in the book when a woman is somehow attacked based on her gender. I sense eyes glazing over. I’m going to keep writing, but break this up into three posts, to make them easier to swallow. So, consider this installment one.
|
|
| Sign this! |
[24 Mar 2007|01:11am] |
A little while back the mom blogs went through a bit of a tiff over a spot on the Today Show that grossly misrepresented the issue of mothers having a drink at playdates. Basically, the mothers would get together, their kids would play and everyone would eat lunch together. At these gatherings the mothers would have a glass of wine with lunch, say. So, Today does this segment on it, in which, amongst other tricks, they do this shot of a jungle gym with kids playing on it past a couple wine bottles looming large in the forefront. They did a real hatchet job. Then, they had a "discussion" afterward with Melissa from Suburban Bliss and railroaded her. It was pretty terrible, all in all. Just another excuse to attack mothers for no reason in particular. And it got the blogworld (or, at least those of us who are moms) up in arms for awhile. Well, apparently Momsrising.org has got together a petition, to end the mommy wars in the media.
The premise is that with mothers in our nation (and, indeed, the world) facing so many struggles on so many levels, why do we really need to make up reasons to become alarmist about what horrible, selfish, lazy bitches mothers all are? Why can't we focus the media on real issues that would really help mothers? Here is the petition. Please, everyone sign!
Apparently after the Today Show thing, enough bloggers made enough noise, and enough people reacted by taking the issue to NBC that the show took a second, more balanced look at the issue. So, there's maybe some hope?
Anyway, Alice Bradley writes about it much more elegantly than I do.
Here is Melissa's blog. She was brave enough to go on the Today Show in the first place.
Here is the Today Show segment.
And, really, it's not just this segment. It's all over the place in the media, blaming mothers for not being enough, or being too much. If you work, you're selfish and neglecting your kids. If you stay home, you're lazy and being a poor role model. If you work part time, you're not good enough on either front. There's just no real way to win.
|
|
| A link to another post. |
[22 Mar 2007|03:26pm] |
I was just reading through this post on Punkass Blog - okay, really, I read the comment thread more than the actual post, because the comment thread was really the bit that I found remarkable. I liked the post. I agreed with the post, but the comments really blew me away. Most of them not in the good way. In a "Oh my word, do people really think this way?!" way.
Here's a gem, for everyone to check out:
Guy #1: You really don’t see any inherent benefits accorded to you by this society simply by being a dude? Are you sure about that? Guy #2: Yes. There is no Patriarchy
This guy is apparently not kidding. I'm not even halfway through the comments. It's a combination of depressing and hillarious that I am having trouble describing.
|
|
| Thoughts on homeschooling |
[21 Mar 2007|02:56pm] |
Maybe someone has thought of this stuff, but Homeschooling is such a sudden sensation (I know it's been around a long time, but has, in recent years, become much more widespread, to, I think, unprecedented levels) that I'm imagining there are a lot of cracks to fall through. Plus, my neighbor across the street recently switched over to homeschooling her son, and her flippancy about how easy the process is (Just having him fill out, essentially, worksheets provided by the company and reporting his scores to the company.) sets off a few alarms in my head.
I mean, the first and most obvious is who is really regulating what kind of education these kids are getting? It doesn't seem to me that there's a lot of real oversight involved in this, which means that there are going to be kids coming out of this undereducated when it's too late to effectively reverse the damage done. Now, I admit that it's my opinion that on average homeschooled kids get a better education than kids in public schools. They get personalized instruction by someone who really cares about them getting a good education, and can learn at their own pace, etc, etc.. but sometimes they're *not*, and who's looking out for those kids?
The second thing, slightly more worrisome in a more long term way is... do these kids get vaccinations? Kids have to have vaccinations to get into school, and a lot of them, frankly, wouldn't get vaccinations if they didn't have thie requirement. Vaccines are unpleasant, inconvenient and often expensive. I remember with my son's vaccines getting into Kindergarten, the pediatrician wouldn't give them unless he also had a full physical, which cost me 120 bucks. Ouch. But, we did it, because we *had to*. Now, I also believe these things should be provided free of charge, but even without the cost there are those who would not get vaccinated if they weren't compelled to do so. And the reasons these diseases are next to unheard of in this day and age is because most everyone has been immunized against them, so they can't take hold here. Without that shield, might we see outbreaks of, say, polio?
Here's my real concern, though... schools catch abuse. Often abused kids have only their teachers and officials at the schools they attend as adults they can trust outside of their families. Homeschooled kids have the potential of being incredibly socially isolated, and thus powerless if they have an abusive parent or parents. There are ways, as my brother (who intends to homeschool) points out, to be sure the kids get socialization with other kids their age - group classes, outdoor activities and the like. But there's no requirement to become involved in these sorts of things, so that homeschooling could be an excellent way to disguise dysfunctional or dangerous family situations.
Like I said, I haven't really researched it. These are just my thoughts, but it seems problematic, on the surface.
|
|
| Rising above my white trash roots |
[21 Mar 2007|02:16pm] |
|
I called today and arranged for a salvage yard to come pick up the old, ugly car out of my driveway. Tomorrow at 9am, I move up in the world. Just a little.
|
|
|
[20 Mar 2007|03:33pm] |
|
Black Snake Moan makes me angry. On so many levels. I haven't even seen it, nor will I. But I am righteously indignant.
|
|
| Plug! |
[19 Mar 2007|02:24pm] |
I realized I hadn't put out a plug for Chris's new blog yet, despite my great enjoyment of it, to date. He manages to say profound things in simple enough ways that it draws me in. He's also well educated on the subjects he speaks on (mostly atheism and religion in general, with plenty of historical reference and touches of socialism and popular culture.)
Go check it out!
Also, I have been designing the webpage he intends to use to promote his writing. Check that out, too!
Things have been quiet here, of late. I'll put together a post about something interesting and thought provoking here soon. Waiting for the right subject to spark my interest. Lately I hear stuff on the news and it all seems like the same old, same old. I could say AGAIN how things are unfair for women, but I've said all that before.
Last night, my son walked up to me and asked "Mom, what's the point of money?"
And I was sort of baffled. I asked what he meant.
He replied, "Well, without money, there wouldn't be any hobos and stuff."
So, then I told him to sit down, because this was going to be a long talk.
|
|
| I lied |
[10 Mar 2007|04:39pm] |
It's not good news for this post.
I read the article and ran the numbers and it seems like one in nine inmates in Texas Youth detention centers is being/has been sexually abused by adult staff of the centers. Apparently, a Texas Ranger told the TYC (Texas Youth Commission) about an incident related to this two years ago, and nothing was done about it.
Here is the Texas Observer's take on the original case. P.S. Love the Texas Observer.
From the first story, I particularly enjoyed this quote:
"I'd like to assure everyone that the board is very, very interested in a new direction" for the Youth Commission, Bethel said.
Oh my god. A new direction. I'm assuming he means a direction other than widescale sexual abuse and cover-ups? Which would be a good thing, all around. Also note that in arriving at the one in nine figure, I went with the reported cases, rather than the confirmed cases. I did this because the numbers in the article are taken from TYC's investigation of itself. So, not only am I assuming that all the reported cases are true, but my guess is that this thing is far more widespread than these numbers are letting on.
Apparently, this week, the Texas Legislature voted "no confidence" in the TYC board, and several facilities have been taken over by the Rangers. I am shocked this isn't being more widely reported. I heard it on NPR, then did some digging to get these stories, but when I did a search on Yahoo news, I found two AP wire reports done by Yahoo News, but otherwise the stories seem to be all local Texas news channels. (More digging revealed a story from The Washington Times, one from the Boston Globe, and Dallas Morning News)
The NPR news story on this said that since the Legislature has begun to investigate the report, more accusations have arrisen daily. So, I don't expect that is the last of it.
|
|
| Because we don't look at our poor people, doesn't mean they don't exist. |
[10 Mar 2007|02:35pm] |
NPR is making me angry (again) talking about Cuba and how oppressed its people are. Talking about how oppressed people living under communism are, in general. And I just keep thinking "I wonder how many destitute homeless they have." In fact, I'd almost bet America has more than 11 million destitute/homeless people living here, which I totally didn't look up, so don't quote me on that, but I BET... and the entire population of Cuba is about 11 million.
The absence of absurdly wealthy people... people who have far more than they need... is a feature of Communism, not a flaw. But, somehow, people in the US cannot fathom looking forward to things that are not material wealth. Looking forward, for instance, to never having to worry about losing your home because the economy just doesn't value you. Looking forward to always having what you need to live, no matter what. Not necessarily everything you want, but there are millions of people in the US who would RELISH the idea of being guaranteed to have everything they need to live, no matter what.
But, no. What they show us on TV, and everywhere else for that matter, is that what we need to be happy is money. Lots of it. And, in some cases, specifically having more money than someone else. A sort of money revenge fantasy, in a way.
Furthermore, much of the reason, I think, that a lot of the countries who have tried communism have been so poor is because they were blocked out of a large portion of the world's economy BY US.
Ugh.
Next time I post it'll be something positive. I promise.
|
|
| navigation |
| [ |
viewing |
| |
most recent entries |
] |
| [ |
go |
| |
earlier |
] |
|
|
|
|
![[info]](http://l-stat.livejournal.com/img/userinfo.gif?v=92.1){kind=small}
divabeq's journal