Yesterday Ktreva requested one thing from me, “Can I please have a half an hour to write a post about this weekend.” She knew that if I started playing my new game, the computer would be locked up for the rest of the night unless she said something before I started. Upon arriving at home I dared not start playing. There is a tendency of mine to get absorbed into the game and loose track of my surroundings.

Since I had to watch Clone, this would not be good. I could just see it now; IÂ’m playing Age of Empires 3, absorbed by my marching ranks of musketeers, falconets and mortars against the French. Meanwhile Clone is trying to find out what happens when he sticks a fork in the light socket. IÂ’m pulled away from the game in anger when he blows a fuse right as my attack was at its peak. After fixing the fuse, I go back to playing while my poor son is lying in the middle of the living room twitching.

As soon as Ktreva walked in the house, I had her dinner ready and told her the computer was all hers. She sat down and instead of posting, she started reading blogs! Okay, she was eating while she did it, so I didnÂ’t count that time. However, 2 hours later she was still on there! I kept telling her that it was a moral imperative that she turns the computer over to me. The French were overrunning my forts along the frontier and I needed to defend them!

But did she listen to me? NOOOOooooooo! She had to sit there and continue on and on about how she wanted to see what you all wrote and still had to make her post! Did she ever consider the women that were being slaughtered, or at least rendered homeless? How about taking the time to think about how this is going to effect trade with the natives and the havoc itÂ’s bringing upon my colonies? She didnÂ’t even think about the poor innocent children that were being orphaned by her greedy need to deny me the computer! SHE DIDNÂ’T THINK ABOUT THE CHILDREN!

She gave me the game! Yet she wonÂ’t let me play it. Tell me, good contaminants, is this fair to me? To toy with my mental and emotional wellbeing? She asked for a half-an hour, I made sure she had it. I think itÂ’s only fair that she turned over the computer as soon as those thirty minutes were up!

Posted by: Contagion at 04:00 PM | Comments (12) | Add Comment
Post contains 437 words, total size 2 kb.

1 She could be an agent of the French. You may want to interogate her Abu Gahrib style (you know nekkid pyramids and stuff).

Posted by: Dr. Phat Tony at February 22, 2006 03:06 PM (fk/lm)

2 Looks like somebody needs 2 computers in that house. Didn't see that coming... Quit being such a wussie. :-)

Posted by: Sarah at February 22, 2006 03:28 PM (T4FQi)

3 Heh. I agree with Sarah. Either buy her a computer or suck it up.

Posted by: caltechgirl at February 22, 2006 03:44 PM (jOkK0)

4 Wow women suggesting spending money to fix a problem....gasp i thought I would never see the day. /sarcasm

Posted by: Dr. Phat Tony at February 22, 2006 03:58 PM (fk/lm)

5 Way to work that innocent act Ktreva! *winks and high-fives Ktreva*

Contagion, dude, stop whining! You remind me of that guy for Queer Eye For the Straight Guy! *wink, wink* - *Runs Away!*

Posted by: Oddybobo at February 22, 2006 03:59 PM (6Gm0j)

6 She took my crayon!! Geez, it's like you've never lived with a woman before! :-)

Spazzy wuss.

Posted by: Sarah at February 22, 2006 04:20 PM (T4FQi)

7 This is like partisan politics, of course all the women stick together. Nevermind the fact she misled me to believe it was only going to be half an hour. We'll get a second computer if one of you graciously pay for it!

Posted by: Contagion at February 22, 2006 04:34 PM (e8b4J)

8 She didn't mislead you, she changed her mind. Women do that you know!

Posted by: oddybobo at February 22, 2006 04:36 PM (6Gm0j)

9 Bla bla bla.

I was only pointing out that you are whining like a little girl.

Posted by: Sarah at February 22, 2006 04:48 PM (T4FQi)

10 Seriously Commander Floppy Pants, get a basic laptop and wireless router and your problems are solved. She can blog anywhere in the house and you can game until the French are pushed back into the sea.
WAYYYYYYYYYYY easier this way.

Posted by: spurs at February 22, 2006 05:25 PM (27GT7)

11 That's right! Why spend the money on a computer that would probably be used every day, when that money could be better spent on reenactment crap that will probably be used six times a year!

Posted by: Shadoglare at February 22, 2006 06:15 PM (PO0eN)

12 No, you see, HER half hour for writing the post was at the END of the night -- she was just trying to get to that point...

Posted by: Ogre at February 24, 2006 10:25 AM (/k+l4)

Hide Comments | Add Comment

Being an American Citizen, we all have rights that given to us by the Constitution of the United States. A lot of people take this freedom, this right, this privilege for granted. That is until something happens where it is taken away. Then they will scream about the loss of their first amendment rights.

Blackfive has a post regarding a University of Illinois editor being suspended. The student published the Danish cartoons that caused such uproar over the last couple of weeks. Many have voiced their opinions that what was done to this editor is wrong. Maybe IÂ’m mistaken, but I think that the majority of my readers would agree that this is wrong. The student, Acton Gordon, is being punished for exercising his first amendment rights. I have strong issues with that.

Now, lets turn the table. Barb at Righty in a Lefty State has a post regarding the University of Washington student Senator Jill Edwards. For those of you that havenÂ’t heard about this, it is where the Ms. Edwards made a statement along the lines

”…Whether it is appropriate to honor a person who killed other people. (I) don’t believe a member of the Marine Corps was an example of the sort of person UW wanted to produce.”

This has angered many people, and I think she was wrong is saying such things. But then in BarbÂ’s post she states that Ms. Edwards is going to be forced to make an apology. She has the following excerpt from the mandate:

WHEREAS Student Senator Jill Edwards offended all members of the United States Marine Corps, past or present, dead or alive; especially those who were, are, or will be students at the University of Washington with her comment that she "didn't believe a member of the Marine Corps was an example of the sort of person UW wanted to produce." This commented brought shame and dishonor to not only the UW Student Senate, but also the University as a whole, all its members who have served in the Marine Corps and all Marines past and present.

BE IT RESOLVED BY THE ASSOCIATED STUDENTS OF THE UNIVERSITY OF WASHINGTON:

THAT

Student Senator Jill Edwards will submit, in writing, a signed apology letter seeking forgiveness to all students, staff, and alumni who are now or ever have served in the United States Marine Corps. In said letter it will contain a formal apology and a recognition that her very rights and freedoms are guaranteed by such members of the armed services, to include the Marine Corps, Army, Navy, Air Force, and Coast Guard, past or present, living or dead. Additionally, said letter will be printed in all its form and substance in that day's edition of the UW Daily newspaper as well as being recited on the UW Radio station. To realize her mistake, she must acquaint herself with the history of the person she is so keen to dismiss, by reading Col. Boyington's book, Baa, Baa, Black Sheep. All of these requirements are mandatory, under pain of losing her seat on the Student Senate.

History of Legislation
02/15/2006: Submitted for consideration

The problem I have with this is not that Ms. Edwards is being asked to issue an apology. ThatÂ’s fine, if someone actually managed to offend me IÂ’d demand an apology too. Where I have an issue is that Ms. Edwards is going to lose her student elected seat on the student senate if she doesnÂ’t. Apparently IÂ’m one of the few people that see this as wrong. IÂ’m not seeing too many of the blogs I read shouting out how this is wrong, even the ones saying that what is happening to Mr. Gorton is wrong arenÂ’t touching this? Are the blogs I read that bigoted? Are they not saying something because they donÂ’t feel this is wrong, or are they not saying something because they didnÂ’t catch that part? Maybe IÂ’ve been wrong and they arenÂ’t as freedom minded as I had thought, only comments they agree with are allowed protection under freedom of speech. Personally, IÂ’m hoping itÂ’s just and over site.

Sure I may not like her statements, I may feel what she said was completely wrong. Ms. Edwards may not appreciate the fine men and women that served and fought to give and protect her freedom of speech, but she is still entitled to it. In this case if she feels strongly about her statement and decides not to apologize, she will be punished. Now in BarbÂ’s comments she states:

I haven't followed the U of I story, and don't know anything about the circumstances there. However - I think that the resolution made by Ms. Edwards' fellow senators and peers, if approved as-is (highly unlikely) or even in a toned down form (still unlikely) is valid. They are a self-governing group, and should be permitted to censure their own - you and I have no right to interfere with whatever process they choose.

If she is forced to apologize, I believe that she will learn something - or she is lost already. If the senate backs down and nothing really happens - she will have learned that negative feedback is just fluff she can ignore. At worst (from her perspective) she will be forced to be more introspective in her manner of discourse, at best it will all quietly go away.

DonÂ’t get me wrong; I like Barb and her blog. Maybe IÂ’m misunderstanding what she is saying there, but by her statement IÂ’m under the impression that as long as itÂ’s a self-governing group in the United States, they can do what ever they want. Well the U of I is self-governing, wait most corporations are self-governing. Hell, the mainstream media is self-governing. I guess itÂ’s okay what happened to Mr. Gorton. Hey, for that fact any newspaper should be able to censor any story they want. States, cities and municipalities should be able to censor their senators, aldermen, council members maybe even their citizens. No, I donÂ’t think so.

I think that the UW is just as wrong for threatening to take Ms. Edwards student elected seat away from her if she doesnÂ’t follow their demands as much as it was wrong for the U of I to suspend Mr. Gordon. Wrong is wrong people; a violation of rights cannot be taken as a shade of gray just because you donÂ’t agree with the message.

Posted by: Contagion at 10:34 AM | Comments (14) | Add Comment
Post contains 1087 words, total size 7 kb.

1 Jill Edwards, private citizen, has the right to say any damnfool thing she likes.

Jill Edwards, Student Senator, speaking in her official capacity as a Senator, however, should take care that when she presumes to speak for the organization as a whole, she not completely misrepresent them or their beliefs.

That, I think, is the difference.

Posted by: Jenna at February 17, 2006 11:40 AM (f/kUC)

2 There is validity in what Jenna says. When acting a representative of a group, the group is allowed to dictate the rules and standards for those that are members. If Jill Edwards broke a rule, when making that statement, then she should face the repercussions. On the other hand, Jill as an individual with no affiliation to any group is allowed to say whatever she wants and can just look like an a$$hole all by herself, but being part of a group that has standards as to how their members act, she must either abide by them or leave the group.
The press part is just ridiculous. If it was a report that included the cartoons and there was no malice intended, then the whole thing is a crock.

Posted by: Dr. Phat Tony at February 17, 2006 02:15 PM (fk/lm)

3 When I posted about Acton Gordon I said - the paper had a right to fire him. This is true - I didn't like that they were doing this and I felt it set a very bad precedent. But it is their right to get rid of him if he doesn't toe the line of the board.

Now in the matter of the Student Senate - I don't know what the status of this body might be. I would PREFER that she be voted out of her office (however, considering the interest that people actually take in student politics - who would vote?) But as to the rights of the council to boot her off because of what she said - that would depend on their by-laws.

I hadn't been following her story because the original disgusted me so much and to tell you the truth I expect no less from anyone out on the left coast.

Posted by: Teresa at February 17, 2006 05:15 PM (FZwDL)

4 Seems to me that you're comparing apples to crayons with these two stories. (Caveat: I haven't researched either story very well, so I may be completely full of it.)

Mr. Gordon is being let go by the administration of the school/paper, but Ms. Edwards is being cencured by her peers. You made a point of stating that Edwards was "student elected", and I see in the release from the student senate the phraseology "BE IT RESOLVED BY THE ASSOCIATED STUDENTS OF THE UNIVERSITY OF WASHINGTON:", and that leads me to believe that the same process that got her elected is setting her straight. That's all "according to Hoyle" in my book.

The Girl expressed her opinion, and is being afforded an opportunity to change said opinion by way of the agreed upon resolution of the body of "student elected" people with which she is a member.

Gordon is being canned by "The Man" because he printed FACTS that were contrary to what the administration thought was proper. No apology afforded to him, and IMHO he wouldn't do it anyway ...due to the fact that he had enough balls to print them in the first place, and by doing so he let his readership decide.

"Student Senator" does not equate to "Student Newspaper Editor".

I believe that the folks who are ranting about the injustice of the treatment of Gordon are standing on principle, and shouldn't be chastised. As far as I'm concerned, he did what others in the "media" wouldn't do, and showed the truth... unobjectively. He should be praised for this, as it's so rare.

She gave her opinion, and misrepresented the people who put her there to represent them. The folks she is there to speak for are now calling for her apology and requiring her to learn more about the subject she opined upon...which is what an electorate is supposed to do when they are misrepresented. The people who are affording her an apology should be praised for doing so, as it's so rare.

I think you're looking at two sides of two different coins here. Then again...I've been drinking, so all bets are off. :^)

Posted by: Johnny - Oh at February 17, 2006 10:16 PM (uKudz)

5 I think Jenna distilled my view nicely. Although I have struggled with turning it around - say she insulted the ACLU or the UN ... something which I (private citizen) do all the time. I still think that it stands when turned around, though, which was my purpose it twisting it that way.

Posted by: Barb at February 17, 2006 10:56 PM (g9qHI)

6 we all have rights that (are) given to us by the Constitution of the United States.

I disagree, somewhat.

The Bill of Rights protects the rights that the founders thought were God given, and/or inherent to the human condition.

I realize this sounds picky, but your wording implies that human rights are given to us by the government, and logically, they would then not exist when the government is gone or decides otherwise.

Words have power.

No disrespect intended, I might add.

Posted by: jimmyb at February 18, 2006 09:35 AM (XpVhl)

7 Day late and a dollar short am I. Johnny-oh said pretty much what I was going to before I opened the comments. (Much more smarter though)
And Jimmyb, I agree 100%

Posted by: littlejoe at February 18, 2006 07:30 PM (vBIjH)

8 Well, the Bill of Rights covers what the "government" can do about your speech. You have the freedom to say what you want without the government arresting you in the middle of the night and throwing you in jail. What happens in the work place or in schools is governed by their rules.

In Acton Gordon's case - (and Eugene Volokh pointed out on his blog) the board of directors of the paper (which is not part of the school it is a separate entity - has the right to fire him if they don't like what he's doing as editor... even if we think it's wrong.

I don't know where the student Senate falls in this mess. It may be something that is covered by the bylaws of the Senate (covering objectionable speech by a Senator) or it may be covered under the same rules that govern free speech on campus... I have no idea.

But as I said at Barb's - it's not a good idea to make a martyr of this chickie - embarrass the hell out of her by passing a unanimous disagreement with what she's said.

Posted by: Teresa at February 18, 2006 11:36 PM (FZwDL)

9 Some of you are saying this is comparing apples and oranges. If you go deeper then what I'm implying yes, it is different. If you look at the basics of it, no its not. Both said/printed something of their own free will, both are being punished for it. (Even if Mr. Gorton wasn't given a chance to appologize)

Amongst yourselves you've established that both the school newspaper and the senate can do what they want. Now we get back to the heart of my post, why isn't anyone that is screaming that what happened to Mr Gorton is wrong, not screaming that what is happening to Mrs. Edwards wrong?

Ms. Edwards didn't do anything worse then some of the current U.S. Citizens/politicians we have now. She wasn't speaking for the school she was voicing her oppinion.

JimmyB: you went way too literal into that statement, poor choice of words.

Posted by: Contagion at February 19, 2006 04:19 PM (e8b4J)

10 I am not making any noise about Mr. Gordon, and I do think that the editor is subject to the publishers.

Posted by: Barb at February 19, 2006 09:58 PM (g9qHI)

11 I felt it an important distinction.

A very important one.

I may have used a poor choice of words.
It would not be the first time.
I don't claim to write well, or to be that insightful.
But I feel this was important, because while you say I misread what you wrote, there are many in this country who feel exactly that way.
That rights are bestowed by the state.
This is a dangerous mindset.
I apologize if you took offense.

But I don't think you disagree with what I said (correct?).
This seemingly insignifigant parsing of words is what the left uses to do what they wish regarding constitutional issues. The 2nd Amendment is one issue they do this to all the time.
Stoopid hippies.

Posted by: jimmyb at February 20, 2006 06:45 AM (lmeFW)

12 Jimmy, I was saying it was my poor choice of words. I do agree completely.

Posted by: Contagion at February 20, 2006 10:53 AM (e8b4J)

13 cool!
Let us smite hippies together in solidarity, then!!!

Posted by: jimmyb at February 20, 2006 11:39 AM (lmeFW)

14 Yay! Hippie Smiting! Count me in!

Posted by: Ogre at February 24, 2006 10:33 AM (/k+l4)

Hide Comments | Add Comment

About now all of my loyal contaminants, and some of you passer bys are probably thinking, “Where the hell is Contagion’s Valentines day post?” Well you know what, just like Birthdays, father’s day and sweetest day; I don’t celebrate Valentine's Day. It’s a manufactured BS holiday that is designed to make card companies, jewelers, florists and candy makers rich.

To be honest, I find this holiday pretty damn insulting. I donÂ’t need some St. of frou-frou love telling me that I have to do something special for my wife. IsnÂ’t that something I should do on my own and on a regular basis, not just once a year? Sure, some of you are going to smart off, well you do it on a regular basis AND on Valentines Day. Well Bullocks on you! If IÂ’m forced to shell out money to buy a gift for someone, why the hell should I do it all the other days? YouÂ’ve already mugged me for a gift; I hope you enjoy it! If I give them of my own free will, then IÂ’m more likely to do it again of my own free will. And not just when I did something stupid to get myself in trouble.

Plus, if the gift is obligatory, is it really heart felt? Think about it, did you buy your special someone a gift just because you wanted to or because it was Valentines Day. Some of you are probably lying to yourself and saying both. I call BS! Yes, I do! If Valentines Day was next month you wouldnÂ’t have gotten a gift for your loved one this week. You would have waited until next month to do it. Admit it, itÂ’s okay.

Today at work, I’ve been “volunteered” to hand out flowers at work. Yea, that’s right. Mr. Love and cheer here gets flower distribution duty for all the minions. This is part of someone’s plan to “soften” my image with the employees. They even wanted me to dress up as cupid. CUPID PEOPLE! Can you imagine me walking around work in nothing but a giant diaper holding a bow and arrows with heart shaped heads? (You’re welcome for that mental image!) Needless to say, I put my foot down and said, “I’ll wear a red shirt and tie, that’s as far as I’ll go.” True to my word, I’m wearing a red shirt… Blood red.

My ever so cheery smile will be walking up to people, dropping flowers on their desk. I’ve even written a little poem to recite when I deliver the flowers. “On this Valentine’s day, someone bought a flower for you. It’s not from me, because I don’t have a heart like others do.” Then I’m going to smile one of those forced smiles that looks like I’ve gone insane.

Valentines Day, Bahumbug!

Yes, I did get Ktreva a gift, IÂ’m not that stupid.

Posted by: Contagion at 12:42 PM | Comments (9) | Add Comment
Post contains 488 words, total size 3 kb.

1 Ya! Valentine's Day is for suckers!

I bought a gift for my wife too.

Posted by: Dr. Phat Tony at February 14, 2006 10:55 AM (fk/lm)

2 Oh, I wish I were there to hear that poem! That is awesome!

Posted by: Oddybobo at February 14, 2006 11:04 AM (6Gm0j)

3 I bought $3 worth of "American Chopper" foil cards for my first grader to hand out to his classmates. I checked his handwriting and spelling as he put his name and their names on the cards. I folded the cards and affixed the little heart stickers. I stuffed the cards back in the box, and made sure the box was in his backpack when he left for school this morning.

I'm done celebrating. Woo. And Hoo.

Posted by: Jenna at February 14, 2006 12:52 PM (f/kUC)

4 Happy VD!

Posted by: caltechgirl at February 14, 2006 01:01 PM (uI/79)

5 Awwww. I think you might have looked cute as cuipd! You'd have to wear a tartan diaper, though. And I don't know that it would be good for you to be armed in any way.... But the insane smile would still work!

Posted by: Richmond at February 14, 2006 01:06 PM (e8QFP)

6 Yes, I can imagine it... accessoried with a sporran. And hiking boots. And a cigar.

Posted by: Omnibus Driver at February 14, 2006 02:03 PM (6VG2d)

7 I'll bet you're a wonderful little cherub........*he says sarcastically*...

Posted by: spurs at February 14, 2006 02:45 PM (tdOZ4)

8 A diaper... ROFLMAO... oh yeah I can see that one then Ktreva can get to you easier to pinch you when you're out of line.

No, we don't do the V day either - we never have. And no my husband will not come home with a present for me nor do I have anything for him. What a waste of time and money... sheesh.

Posted by: Teresa at February 14, 2006 04:34 PM (FZwDL)

9 "Bullocks on me?"

Would that be SANDRA Bullocks?

Posted by: Ogre at February 15, 2006 08:04 AM (/k+l4)

Hide Comments | Add Comment