blue

I'm just glad not to be the poor schmuck who had to count all that hair and estimate the total amount of hair. Now I find myself more than vaguely disturbed at the mention of hair and drinks. Also, I'm trying to get that blasted "my milkshake" song out of my head. Yikes!

Hmm, isn't that related to or nearby the Westboro / Fred Phelps cult? Phooey.

Simple reason: Both "blond(e)" and "brunet(te)" were loanwords borrowed into English sometime in the 1600's or 1700's. English kept the French grammatical forms, and then it became tradition. In the 1950's, they were still very strict about making the spelling agree with the gender of the person whose hair it was. OK, you say, but why? And what forms? And why adjectives? And what...? OK, OK, wait a minute, I'll get there. :) English used to have its adjectives agree in grammatical form with the gender and number of the noun, just like its Germanic cousins and Latin distant cousins like French still do. But English dropped that late during the Middle English period (after Chaucer and before KJV and Shakespeare). -- So why spell blond and brunet differently, like the French do? Two reasons: One, at the time blond and brunet entered English, French was the big international European language for literature and science and diplomacy. So if you were educated, it was important for your English and French to be proper, even though spelling wasn't quite standard yet. French final E wasn't quite silent yet, either. The second reason was because blond and brunet could serve as adjectives (He has blond hair.) versus nouns (He is a blond.). English nouns still change form for number (and case) so you could have a blond or a brunet, some blonds or brunets, and the ladies thought it was très chic et à la mode (no, not with ice cream) to be blondes and brunettes, and the guys chased girls of whichever hair color they liked, so they wanted a cute blonde or brunette (or several?) too. That is, when they were the kind of guys who chased girls instead of guys. ;) blond, brunet - one male; blonde, brunette - one female; blonds, brunets - several males or mixed males and females; blondes, brunettes - several females; It's only since around the 1950's that that has started to blur. English nouns change form for number (one dog, two dogs) and case (one dog's, two dogs') but not gender, and very few English nouns have any inherent gender if they aren't animate, living creatures. So the -e and -te are probably doomed in English. Oh, and no, I don't know why they didn't borrow rousse, rousses for redheads, auburn hair, or strawberry blonds. They just didn't. Call it inconsistent or unfair or not as popular, but it didn't happen. We still say people have brown or black hair, or sable (another loan but not French) or raven-haired or chestnut (very English) or a few others. So what did people call blond hair before "blond" was borrowed? Simple: You were one of the following: fair-haired, tow-headed (white-blond), flaxen-haired (like linen), or if they were really into you, you might be golden or honey haired. If your hair was really light, you might even be silver or platinum haired, but silver haired usually meant you'd gone grey. There was one other thing to note. Back in medieval times, it was popular to be fair-haired, of course. But -- There were two ways it might work against you. If you were fair-haired but looked or acted weird, you just might be one of the fair folk, and that might or might not be good. If you were the kind whose hair changed from blond to brown with the seasons (sun-bleached) or when you grew up (puberty, oh boy) then you just might be a changeling, one of the fair folk exchanged for a human baby, and that was really suspicious. Just be glad you don't have to worry whether you have a silent or voiced E at the end of your adjectives in English now, like they did in Chaucer's day. No, it still doesn't make much sense why we kept the separate male and female forms for blonde and brunette, but we did. Me? I'm a blond, not a blonde. At least I'm not a beige. But at least with beige, you don't have separate male and female forms. If something is beige in French, it's always beige, unless they are beiges! And now it should make perfect sense, right? Surrrre! No. I don't know what anybody had against gingers, redheads, auburn-haired, strawberry-blonds, those folks. :: shrugs :: Red was popular, despite the old wives' tale about tempers. Silly, isn't it?

French spelling is so strange because it retains so much from the past, so it's not surprising anyone would have trouble with it. Some of the oddities of English spelling are holdovers from the Norman French period of Middle English. My knowledge of French is mostly from the classroom, high school and college, so when I try to follow movies and songs, I often find myself reading the subtitles, which is very hard. I'd rather concentrate on the French. At least I can think in French without always having to translate back and forth. Salut encore et bienvenu!

Neat story! Milo is a keeper. So's Win. Go, Donny. Thoroughly enjoyed this story.

Yup, I've tried to make sense of Cajun French, but often it's too changed for me to get it. What I learned was standard French, and not Québecois either, but French French. Paul, are you French originally? :) I'm Texan, so a "Coke" is any soda. It's only recently in the big cities, with constant influx of people from anywhere in the country, that I hear "soda" more often. Yes, this means that the waitress may ask you what kind of Coke you want, and she doesn't just mean Classic, Zero, Cherry, or Vanilla. Note also to out-of-state and international folks: If you order "tea," you will get iced tea. Specify hot tea if you want that. Further, in big cities in the South and Southwest, you'll have a choice of unsweetened or sweet tea, but in most small town restaurants besides the big chains, you're likely to get sweet tea (again, iced tea) by default, so ask for unsweetened. Though these days, diet and diabetes consciousness are changing that. Personal experience: In small towns in Texas, your best bet is often chicken fried steak, if you can't tell the food quality right away. In small towns in Louisiana, your best bet is often seafood like fresh catfish, and you are likely to leave full and satisfied. Where my dad's from, Virginia and around there, Kentucky and Tennessee, you can ask for a Coke, but if you don't specifically want a Coke, you may need to ask for a soda or a pop. Depending on where you are, though, "pop" or "soda" might sound "Yankee" (Northern) to the locals. And given that I've edited for Graeme and Des both, and know a few other Aussies and Kiwis, I'm mystified why I'm not sure what the usual word is for a soda pop / soft drink / ahem, carbonated beverage.

The French probably look at them funny when they throw in the French too; perhaps even funnier, depending on where they grab before throwing.... "Oh-là-là, mon cheri, encore!"

The language is merging back together, borrowing from everywhere English is now native. Over here, we're seeing British and Australian/New Zealander words entering the vocabulary through audio and video, books and the internet. Every day now, I see both US and UK spelling, any time I turn on my computer. But we're about overdue for a language change anyway. I don't think Shakespeare or King James or Queen Elizabeth I would recognize either UK or US English modern pronunciations or usage. They could read most of what we write and they'd hear either side of the pond as a strange dialect. We'd hear them as a strange dialect too. (Linguists have questions about their vowels and some of the consonants, for instance.) That article: Well, first, modern communications and technology are putting new words into the vocabulary on both sides of the pond. Er, three sides? Aside: If Brits don't call them sodas, what do they call them? Soft drinks? Seltzers? Both sides are re-borrowing vocabulary, either formal or slang, as we have more everyday contact. Americans don't use British slang much, but we are aware of some of it and becoming aware of more. I have a feeling that in another fifty to a hundred years or so, the spelling divide may solve itself. The standard spoken dialect may start to merge too, but that'll be slower. Some things in that article aren't British versus American usage, but simply current events and pop culture. Americans listen to British music and television and films and British folks listen to ours; likewise with Canada, Australia, and New Zealand. But the thing that really puzzles me is about the basilisks and hippogriffs. Those are English and European medieval mythical beasts to begin with. They've existed in fantasy and historical fiction ever since. Their appearance in the Harry Potter books are from the UK from J.K. Rowling, couldn't be more Great Britain, Scotland, and Wales if you tried. Yes, Harry Potter and fantasy and science fiction are very popular over here too. But no one would claim that a basilisk or a hippogriff or a dragon are American. The article's covering usage overall, not just American incursion into British usage. It'd be good if that writer did a companion piece on British words entering American usage. I'm fairly well aware of the common spelling differences and much of the grammatical variances. When I've edited before for Aussies like Graeme or DesDownUnder, I've asked if I didn't know a slang term or a common phrase, and I managed to surprise Graeme once with an Americanism he didn't recognize. (Apparently, "to root" has a very different (and sexual) connotation in Australia, where in America, it's common to root for the home team.) (I dropped my teeth, like most Americans, the first time I learned that the British word "fanny" is *very* different from the American word "fanny." Thinking about just how or why that word would've changed meaning between the two was...very odd indeed.) I'm looking forward to the next series of Doctor Who, for instance, and still have hopes for Primeval. At some point, I'll sit down and catch up on Being Human and Sherlock. (I haven't seen Sherlock yet.)

Great note. Real or not, that's awesome. Two thumbs up. One for the openly gay boy in class. One for the linebacker or whoever put up the note.

Hmm.... Well, most cattle grazing is done on land already set aside. The destruction of rainforest, though, ostensibly for farming or for living space...is incredibly sad and senseless. That's not just diversity of species, it's also a major source of air recycling on the planet. I *like* hamburgers, preferably homemade. Soylent Green would be a little much, even if the planet's overrun with the pesky two-legs. But some of the other major predators might find that quite tasty. Wait, what am I saying? And how come the holodeck is unlocked? Gee, those raptors sound kinda close...they're flocking this way! (With apologies to at least three scifi authors.)

Judge Lanny Moriarty is in fact a man. He serves on a Justice of the Peace court in Conroe, Texas. The article says Diane Tran is a student at Willis High School, which I'm presuming is in Willis, TX or else Conroe, TX. -- I don't have a vote in either place, darn it, I'm in Houston. Reporter Sherry Williams for KHOU-11 Houston, Texas, had additional coverage: http://www.khou.com/home/Honor-Student-Jailed-for-Absences-153847275.html ^ The article is the same as the article Cole quoted. There is also video coverage. Very telling. http://www.khou.com/home/People-across-the-country-offer-help-to-honor-student-jailed-for-truancy-154235505.html ^ Video coverage there too, and more details. Note the judge's comment. The first video does state that the judge still has to consider the case and could throw out the case. If he does, then she would not have a record of jail time. But at least from the video coverage, it doesn't sound like he will. I hope I'm wrong about that, but it doesn't seem so. To Sherry Williams' credit (the reporter) she was trying to advocate for Diane Tran. The articles were from May 24th and May 25th, and the court will not be back in session until after Monday. According to the second article and video, this has been getting notice locally (Conroe and Houston) and across the country...and it should. I don't get why the judge would say what he said on camera, which gave a possibility he might reconsider, but said too that he doesn't want to appear soft on truancy. How short-sighted, and from a judge! Her first court appearance was alone before the judge, with no one else there (except the reporter) so far as was reported. Couldn't the famiy she's with have shown up, at least for moral support, if not allowed to speak before the judge? I don't understand that one. People who know Diane Tran, including the family she's staying with (her bosses at one job) are speaking highly in her favor. Sad thing: She doesn't want to speak in front of the camera now, for fear of what else might happen. Worse thing: She feels she has "shamed her parents" and her family. No she hasn't. Her parents have shamed themselves and have abandoned and let down their children and their responsibilities. Diane Tran hasn't shamed herself or her family. She's done what's right, except in being truant, for which there are quite understandable mitigating factors. It's her parents who should be shamed. And I think the judge and the school authorities should be shamed too. As one commenter points out, Diane Tran taking shame upon herself -- is the response of someone who's been abused, when all she's done is right. Truancy, tardiness, are understandable, given what she's doing. Sure, she needs to be in school, of course. But neither should she have to work two jobs and not get enough sleep, and neither should she have to be the only one supporting her family without help. -- And again, the judge and school are the very ones in position to see she gets help, not throw the book at her. It's official (and bureaucracies') responses like these that send precisely the wrong message to our own people. The way to change it? Vote out people who don't act in the public interest. If the system is bad, then change the system. -- Things like this make me wonder how people can stand it. I have no sympathy for heartless bureaucrats who will not act for the common good. They need to be voted out or lose their appointed positions, in favor of people who'll do right by the people they are elected or appointed to serve. Officials govern by consent of the governed, the voters. They seem to have forgotten that. Note: Conroe is north of Houston by a fair distance, but many people make the commute from there to Houston for work, hours each workday both directions.

I haven't been in that judge's court to know for sure, and I don't recall from the last elections, but the article says he's a he. (That article and reporter are from one of my hometown TV stations.) Oh, I agree, Colin. I think Diane Tran is fighting a one woman battle without support and against nearly impossible odds. She shouldn't be expected to be able to do all that alone. It's just not humanly possible. I'm not trying to fault her. ...And it's almost six months, and I still fight to overcome burnout and exhaustion, after getting through a similar situation. She has my sympathy. The judge made a bad decision and it'll hurt an A student, someone who's working herself into exhaustion, to do right for her family. Yes, I got that she's an honor student, AP courses, early college, two jobs, and it's no wonder she has to sleep sometime. The judge ought to show a little understanding and compassion, which I'd said. Colin's also right about the school, which I didn't address. Her school counselor, principal, and teachers ought to know what is going on with her. They ought to be willing to help in some way, instead of merely pursuing a court battle over truancy. This is again where compassion and willingness to help, to go beyond merely enforcing rules, for the betterment of that student (and current/future leader) enter into it. Punishing your very best and brightest, when that person is doing more than required of her in all ways, and when she (very understandably) can't be expected to keep up the pace with everything at once...sigh. The school system probably sees it as, "Well, if we give her special treatment, then we have to do that for everyone, and we don't have the resources." OK, fair enough. But would it really hurt to help just one student who needs it, before she burns out, collapses, or turns to things that will not help anyone? The judge and school system may not realize the real lesson they've taught a good student: That despite all her best efforts to do the right thing, she's being punished for it by the very institutions that are supposed to care and help her get help out of that situation. Yes, I agree, Colin, absolutely. Cole -- I agree, that judge was just looking to make a statement that'd be a "tough on crime" sound bite, good for re-election. He wasn't looking at the particular person in the case before his court. Yet it is his responsibility to do so. That's why the blazes a judge is put on the bench as a judge. A good judge is not just someone who enforces the rules only, but who uses the power he or she is given to bring about positive outcomes. It's within that judge's purview to set up help for that young woman and her family. Instead...he tossed her in jail? What a terrible lesson to teach. However, that judge will be up for re-election in his district or position, if not this election, then soon. If my vote has a say in his seat on the bench, I know exactly what my vote will be: NAY.

Heh, fine story. I really like that. You should've seen my grandmother's first and only plane trip at 99 years old. The single, "Oh my!" as we took off and made altitude into the clouds was worth the exorbitant cost of the plane tickets. She enjoyed it, but didn't quite understand it all. The pat down at our city airport was not cool, but we got her through it. Hmm, you know, I'm not sure what the Amish stance is on whether an Amish is OK to ride in a car or a plane. I think they do allow some things as a practical matter, thought they don't approve of them. I haven't visited Amish folks, but I have family (an uncle and aunt) in Virginia, not too far from Amish country. And how my uncle and aunt (and my dad and his other siblings) grew up was not too far removed from how Amish live. (Difference: My grandparents and their neighbors were as modern as any farm families at the time, but that wasn't too far beyond the 19th century, in the early-middle of the 20th century. My dad put in electricity and indoor plumbing for my grandparents, while on leave from the Army in the 1950's.) Wow, I hadn't thought of how current air travel security would handle an Amish passenger. That's a really good question. -- And yes, the Amish "plain" style of dress, and Amish language (English and "Pennsylvania Dutch" German) would, hmm, be a puzzle, but Pennsylvanians and a few other places, they'd recognize those. I'm not sure how it'd go. Haha, Abner's question about how the wings would avoid the telephone and electricity poles, perfect. Great idea for a story. Great job, Paul. Say hey to Paco too. It's been a long time since I've watched the movie, Witness, and this reminds me of it a little. Might have to pick it up. Two thumbs way up.

I should read Reorientation along with Graeme's story New Brother and its sequel, which point out a few things on religion and being gay. The Catholic church's stance, that you can be gay, you just had better not do anything about it, or you're a sinner and unfit, is a case of splitting semantic hairs. However, Catholics themselves are divided about the issue of homosexuality. Many Catholics do favor women as equals in the laity and in ministry (including the priesthood) and marriage of priests. That's true especially in America, but it's true elsewhere too. The various Protestant denominations are likewise divided about homosexuality, both in their official denominational statements and in their members' opinions. I'm Protestant. My own denomination has an official stance that recognizes homosexuality and is not against gay people as members, or serving in the church, or as ministers. However, just because that's the official stance, doesn't mean that individual churches, ministers, or members agree with that. -- My own struggles with my "emerging homosexuality" versus religious faith, and with family and friends' attitudes, and with my local church(es), contributed to me being an on-and-off member during college and after. My particular local church's handling, during my grandmother's illness and afterward, was mixed. The response afterward...if and when I attend regularly again, I will find another church or denomination. That does and does not have anything to do with being gay. A few people there know I'm gay and are fine with me. We've had other gay and lesbian members...including when I was first coming out. Others at church "hate the sin and love the sinner" or are even less tolerant than that. (No, I don't really count that attitude as "tolerant," by the way.) So...I guess it is about usual for many congregations. -- I will say, I never heard a specifically anti-gay sermon at my local church or the church where I was a member as a boy...except when we had an influx of "Charismatic Movement" people, including the pastor, who didn't ever follow through on his agreement to join the denomination. Heh. -- So, yes, I have a very mixed view on various religions' takes on homosexuality. I still see both hope for enlightenment and positive change, acceptance of gay people, within religious faiths -- as well as the opposite, a strain of people very opposed, intolerant, and fearful, and unwilling to consider the issue, even of things like which translations are valid or best, or what interpretations and historical views, both in Judaism and Christianity, might apply. ...Or the more basic issue of, if everyone is God's child and God loves them all, then that means God must love gay people too. (As one recent quote put it, "If God doesn't like homosexuals, then why are there so many of them?" That quote may not be exact. It's from a person testifying before some committee, but I don't recall who or what.) Growing up, it wasn't just religion or family views, positive or negative or mixed signals, on homosexuality. It was friends, school and classmates, everyday secular (non-church) life, supposed "scientific" claims and prevailing views, and portrayals in the media (TV, film, radio, etc.) that affected how I felt about being gay, either for myself or friends. Those things affected how friends acted toward me and my friends, or, honestly, how we interacted towards any possible exploration of that: talking about it as friends...or any chances of trying things out. If both you and your friend are conflicted and sending mixed signals, it's hard to get to the point of finding if either of you might like to test the subject. Yet it does happen, kids experimenting or doing more than experimenting, or becoming a couple. I think the test is larger than particular religions' or denominations' views on being gay. It's the surrounding larger secular culture and it's the particular religious culture or lack of one. But yes, religious views are a major factor. Religious and secular views feed off each other in some things, and views on homosexuality are one of those areas where religion and secular life are intertwined to a great degree. Me, I would like to see improvement towards acceptance, and away from either "it's a sin and an abomination" or "you can be gay but you'd better not actually do anything about it or you'll be a sinner outside the church." In my experience, it is difficult, standing between being gay or having gay friends, and being religious and faithful. It requires a lot of thought about what you yourself believe and what is the real truth in what's written or believed, versus what some people say about those. In particular, people who read the Bible, Old Testament or New Testament, need to read up on current thinking, including accepting views and including discussions of the problems in translating the original languages and the varying current and historical views throughout Jewish and Christian history. If thehen reasons boil down to concerns over hygiene, ritual purity, abuse, or how to treat people, or lack of commitment, or simple fears conflating homosexual behavior with other sexual behavior, then you reconsider what all the fuss is about. And no matter how much you pray about it or keep from doing anything, you're still going to be just as gay, if you're gay. So it helps nothing to say you can't act on your feelings. It only means you're condemning someone to be lonely and unfulfilled, and to feel cut off from love of many kinds, not just sexual love or religious love. There has to be something better. People have to understand and accept, instead of being intolerant and unloving and uncaring. Ignorance, prejudice, and lack of caring or compassion -- are not how it's supposed to be.

Y'all wish we'd leave the union? On behalf of Texans, fellow citizens of the United States of America, thank y'all so very much. We love y'all too! Before you dismiss my comments, think about this young lady's case. Do I think that judge made a bad decision? Yes. He should've decided otherwise and should have given her good advice. That's his job, and he missed the mark there, badly. That young lady is trying to do too much at once. It's not sustainable. If she isn't recorded as attending or isn't attending classes, how is she going to graduate? In order to be up for truancy in the first place, this has to be an ongoing problem, not just missing a day here and there. It has to be extended. I don't happen to know the number, but it's something over a week or more, I think, and yes, they are supposed to deal with the parents first and then there's some channel (social worker, Children's Protective Services?) before it goes before a judge. So her case isn't trivial of just a few days. Yes, students can be put before a judge -- in any state -- for truancy. They can still be sent to schools for at-risk youth or youth with records. Is she missing work too? Or those college classes? She can't "afford" to skimp on high school any more than she can on paying work or early college. Obviously, her high school record determines whether she can get into a four year college. Her grades are great, she has begun taking college credits and will have those. But if she can't make it to high school classes, chances are she's not doing so well in other things too. She is doing too much at once. Something's gotta give. Once she graduates high school, she'll have to attend college or postpone it and work, then try for college later, if she gets the chance. She'll still have to meet obligations at college and work, like showing up and staying awake and not skipping out. That's not heartless, that's very real. She is trying to support her family. Good. Not good if she can't keep it up and collapses, flunks out, or loses a job. -- Both parents left them and she's supporting her family? Good grief, that's ridiculous. Go grab the two parents and make them both pay child support. Even though they are out of state, it should be possible to have them remanded to custody in their new states or sent back to Texas to face the court there. The real problem is the two parents have abandoned their near-adult or nowhere-near-adult children. No, I don't blame Miss Tran for trying to do the right thing for her brother and sister and herself and any other siblings. I would assume her brother's working too, or will be. She needs help besides the understanding of her full-time and part-time bosses, and it is great that she (and her sister) have somewhere to live. -- Bad, bad circumstances for her and her family. They need something that can help them before things get worse. That older brother is going to have a hard time staying in college unless he has scholarships and can pay all the other expenses that go with college. If he's working, he likely is not making nearly enough to pay even a tiny portion of his college expenses. -- I attended Texas A&M. I have some idea of what's around there. Pizza or other fast food delivery isn't going to cut it. Part-time or full-time for some local company or a work program there on campus will not quite do it either. Yes, there are part-time and campus work positions to get a leg up and yes, those can pay OK. But they don't necessarily cover him. He'll go into debt and may not be able to make current expenses. Understand, the costs for a single semester are way about $30K now. He likely can't contribute any to his sisters' care. Even with a full scholarship and college loans, he'll be lucky to make it. Given the ages involved, these students are the children or grandchildren of first-generation immigrants, Vietnamese refugees. These students' parents...should know better than to skip out on their children. Unconscionable. (I am presuming the parents did not actually go elsewhere to get work.) -- Education, hard work, and family are highly valued in Vietnamese culture. Hey, I went to school with Vietnamese kids, refugees directly from the war. One of my classmates refused to write his city of birth, Saigon, as Ho Chi Minh City, on his college applications, even if it cost him a college entry. (I would bet he got in.) Well, anyway, good luck to them. They are going to need it. ----- About Texas and the USA: The "all or nothing" response is exactly what's wrong in our country today. The comments above from people? Come on, y'all, stop and think! Just because the governor or various gubernatorial candidates or some seated judges don't use good common sense or sound judgment, doesn't mean all Texans are like that. Just because many Texans are against gay rights issues does not mean all Texans are. What about those of us who ARE gay Texans...such as my own city's mayor, a woman who has been publicly out and partnered for years before in her previous position as City Comptroller. Now, I know Gov. Perry has said maybe gay Texans like myself should just leave, but I was born here just the same as he was. This is my home and it was my parents' home state. (My dad was born in Virginia, another state that has had its governor say on record that gay people should leave there.) Excuse me, but the governor does not have the right to tell a lawful citizen that he should leave, just because he's gay. Neither do people from other states have the right to say my state or myself should leave the union. You all do not live here. I do. What would happen if Texas left the United States? Texas is home to a sizable percentage of the US population, with two of the top ten largest US cities, Houston and Dallas. Texas provides a large percentage of cotton, rice, wheat, beef, sheep, chicken, fish, vegetables, fruit including citrus fruit, wine and beer, bread, and so on to the US grocery list. Texas is home to a major portion of the US space program and to major military bases and civilian international ports and airports and trade. Texas provides several major universities. Texas is home to several high technology companies, including major computer hardware and software companies. If Texas left the union, you'd suddenly pay higher import fees on TI calculators and chips, Dell and HP computers, much of your groceries, and so on, and you could kiss the space program, manned or robotic, goodbye. It would be huge hit to the US economy. It would be a huge hit to the Texas economy too. I may not like everything my state or ny nation do, but I am proud to be a Texan and an American even so. I want to see real change, real improvement, for my state and my country. Before you say an entire state full of fellow citizens should leave, please consider what you're really saying. Do I think anyone really intended what they said? Yes and No; I think people were not really thinking about what they were saying. -- And I don't hold it against anybody. But it makes me unhappy to see people say things like that without bothering to think what it says to your neighbors and countrymen. I am just as much an American as you are, and I care just as much as you do about what happens in my country and my state and my world. -- And I expect better from you all (and from me, incidentally). I don't think that Miss Tran was treated fairly by that judge's decision. His decision lacks the compassion and larger consideration that are as much required of him as is the letter of the law. His job is, or should be, to be fair and to be an arbiter of acts to improve and correct the injustices in the lives of the people on whom he's called to pass judgment. Please, folks, this is about that young woman and that particular judge's decision. Making it about an entire state's worth of people, or that state's place in the union is no better than that judge's actions, now is it? Stop and think about what you say! This all or nothing crap does no good for anyone. Thank you, that's what I had to say. Stepping down from the soapbox now.

Really liking the band, guys. One gripe: The sound for the lead (Camy) and backup singers gets swallowed up by the instruments. I noticed it on this one, didn't notice as much on "Broken Heart" or "Sincerity Machine." Common problem when playing live, I think. I don't know enough to know how to balance out the mix. I've really liked Camy's songs and getting to see the videos is super.

I respect Dr. Richard Leakey for his moderateness in accepting that people have many disparate views on religion and faith. Whatever we think of various religions or the lack of religion, these systems do provide comfort and structure and guidelines for those who believe in them. Religious faith does not preclude being scientifically minded or believing the theory of evolution. Evolution is not a perfect theory, but it's the one that best fits what we know. Rather than attack religions, why not rest on the strength of the scientific method and let the data and the theories speak for themselves? The real key is not so much the ability to use science, as it is the ability to rise above our differences, including differences in beliefs and opinions, in order to work together. If our species cannot overcome its destructive urges, either of other life and other things or of itself, then we won't make it. Our species has to survive long enough that enough of its people evolve better ways to avoid indiscriminate mass destructive tendencies. If we don't, then some other lifeform will take our place someday. Climate change, ecological change, and evolutionary change are unavoidable. But our species has the ability to use technology to adapt to what is in the environment, and to adapt a shelter from the environment to create our own environments. The key there seems to be to learn how to work in harmony with the larger global system, instead of against it or outside of it. -- The one thing I miss most, being so far inside the city, is the presence of nature, green, growing, living things and animals. It is arrogant of us to assume that we can build massive enclosed structures that are impervious to, and beyond or outside of, the global environment. Even an enclosed system has to interact, to exchange with the global system. Even a space station or space vehicle needs to import goods, at least initially and again at intervals, with a livable planet. I think our species is capable of adapting, we just don't see how the overall climate may shape us. People get hung up on whether our species will go extinct. It's likely that some portion will survive, even if there is a massive climate change or axis shift, or massive environmental impact or bio-/chem disaster or even conventional or nuclear war. Some portion of our species would likely survive and adapt to whatever happens to the world. The planet becomes hotter? It was likely hotter in ancient (prehistoric and early historic) times, and much hotter during the age of the dinosaurs. Humans survive in the deserts, forests, and jungles, and have for thousands or millions of years with almost no technology. Likewise in arctic and polar conditions like the last ice age. Changes to deal with heat or cold would happen. I respect also Dr. Richard Leakey's optimism in saying we can make it if we want to and if we work at it, if we overcome our shortcomings. I respect too that he's warning us that evolutionary changes and extinctions both are commonplace, and therefore, we have to learn to adapt. There are times I grow impatient or disillusioned, and become cynical, pessimistic, and misanthropic about humankind. It seems we can be so mean and hateful and hurtful to our fellow human beings, whether they are right here with us or next door or in some other country. We can do such short-sighted things that harm the other creatures we share this planet with, and hurt our environment and the planet itself. Yet the forces of nature are so powerful and inexorable that our entire species is prone to whatever nature dishes out. I have lived through weeks, nearly two months, of what it is like when the force of nature slams into the fourth largest city on the planet in one of the most technologically advanced and wealthiest nations on the planet. The result was simple: An entire region of the state, not just that city, was thrown from the 21st century straight back into the 19th century overnight, and stayed that way for nearly two months. People didn't revert to savagery or chaos for the most part, but there was the presence of police and military, to keep that from happening. It gives you a new appreciation for the rights of citizens to bear arms, too. -- If you're wondering what I'm talking about, it was Hurricane Ike, a very, very real thing. -- Something as simple (or complex) and as powerful as a major hurricane and tornadoes, took out a large swath of one of the most advanced areas of our planet, for months. We've seen that happen with the tsunami that struck Japan too. The message is simple: human beings are not nearly as powerful as we think. We are vulnerable to our own messes and we are supremely vulnerable to the global environment and to evolution. The message is even simpler: Adapt or perish.

Des, I think you're on to something there. WWI and WWII and the rise of totalitarian powers versus the struggles for freedom, democracy, civil rights, highlight the irony of how being gay was treated in each of those, democratic or non-democratic. Yet...It looks like there's a change in opinion in a sizable portion of the under-30 population. There's so far to go, but there *is* improvement. I think I need to pull out X-Men 2 and rewatch. That scene got to me, but it has so much packed in there. You know, it would've made a powerful short film in itself. I also wonder what a more positive scene would be, as counterpoint, juxtaposed against it. Or maybe the scene as is tells us what we need to know. Hmm... Anyway, what does one get for a wedding gift for the gay superhero couple? They already have those sexy costumes....

One of the comments to the YouTube video pointed out that for the HRC performance, Greyson added Jamie's name. It is nice to know he has such a big heart. He's a big fan of Lady Gaga, and got a big break thanks to Ellen Degeneres. And he has a heckuva lot of talent eager to make his own mark. Consider that this is all in the last couple of years. He's probably stunned at how fast it's going. That CD doesn't have a bad track on it, which is also remarkable. I noticed when I checked Wiki to see if there was info about the song above, that the various bonus tracks are almost enough for an album themselves. That bodes well for the future. There are a few people whose music or writing I like enough that I'll get their work just because it's them, because I know it'll be that good. He's now one of those people. I have a feeling that we'll still be hearing him those ten or twenty years from now. Good stuff. Very awesome.

Paging Doctor EleCivil, Doctor EleCivil to the Science La-bor-a-t'ry! A science and science fiction geek friend over at another forum had a link to a cool science experiment for kids, for -- fun with electric play-doh. Yes, you read that right, kids, electric play-doh. Apparently, this is what the wacky Aussies over at ABC-TV's Science Channel do for grins. I read through most of the one page, and still have the remainder and links to read through. http://www.abc.net.au/science/articles/2012/05/02/3493722.htm But I knew right away that if anyone could put such a noble scientific experiment to good use, it would be our very own friendly neighborhood teacher, Mr. EleCivil. -- I need to forward this on to a couple of other teacher friends too, they'd get a kick out of it. This is just further proof that you just never know about Australians. How incredibly cool is this?

Awesome, Dude! I still think the scene in X-Men 2, with the boy's reaction to his wings, and his family's reaction, one of the most telling metaphors I've seen. (Ouch, too.) Fine by me if two superheroes, toon or manga, are gay and get married. Congratulations, guys!

:laughs: What was he talking about? :angel: Tiny crustaceans. No, don't let it be so. Really, I can't recommend a lawnmower or a scythe for that. Des, you Nair-do-well!

When I last checked a couple of years ago, about returning to complete my bachelor's degree, I found two things: One, I'd be the age of the professors, with very few undergrads (about 1 in 100) over 35 or 40. Two, a single semester would cost me the equivalent of a year's salary from what I'd been making before standing down to care for my grandmother. -- I have an associate's degree plus electives and a few courses into two or three different majors, English, languages, or computer science. This was before the advent of the web and web design. -- Now, the cost of a year (or two full semesters) would be around two or more years' worth of salary. I am not sure if I'll do it. In any case, I'd have to make a ton of money and save for a few years to do a full-time semester. About music, art, journalism, languages, theater, dance: I was an English major, my first run through college, and tried to switch to computer science in the middle of tanking grades (except in French, English, Calculus, and Computer Science, heh.). My mother was a professional artist (oil paintings, but other media too). My dad was an engineer. Many of my friends were in choir, band, or theater arts, English, journalism, or the foreign languages our high school offered. Then there were friends in math and sciences. Hey, I was a geek, OK? :) I had nice geeky friends. I can't imagine what my life or any of theirs would've been without liberal arts courses like those. My dad loved history, along with being an engineer. They both valued liberal arts. Without arts courses, what kind of bleak world are we going to offer kids? Not every kid can make it to an affluent school or a magnet or charter school, or a dedicated arts school. Not every kid can make it to a good suburban public school like I went to. (At the time, the district was among the best in the state.) Where are kids going to learn things that will enrich their lives and help them enjoy? -- And why in blazes isn't art or music or theater or journalism every bit as worthy and important and valuable to study as, say, football and mathematics and science? (I'm not knocking football, either. Kids need exercise and they deserve to have fun playing sports. Team sports teach how to be a teammate and sportsmanship. No quarrel with those. I just suck at sports, is all, lol.) Looking at it another way -- Those musicians and movie/TV stars (and even writers, ahem) have a hungry audience that sells millions of copies...or at least hundreds or thousands of copies, depending...and the best are paid quite well. (With the exception of most writers.) Our culture idolizes those starring actors and musicians. Everyone on the planet (nearly) has some artwork or clothing or designed item (product, household good, device) that an artist came up with. Given that, why *wouldn't* a school district find it valuable to fund arts courses? Ooh, it boggles the mind! I just can't imagine what it would be like without arts and music and all the other liberal arts taught in school. Would all those kids have to find charter/magnet schools or dedicated arts schools? How can they do that, when the spaces are so limited? How terribly short-sighted. -- Who then will win? Why, that's easy. The country that does invest in the fully rounded education of its kids. If America wants to stay on top, then people have to fund education for their kids, including arts, including textbooks and basic supplies, building upgrades, computers, decent salaries for teachers, policies that work to actually teach kids and keep them wanting to learn more. The countries that do that win the technological and artisitc and ideological pie. They win the planet. Simple as that. Will that be Europe? India? Australia? China? Japan? Some other country entirely? -- I don't begrudge those other countries the right to excel. Excellence benefits everyone it touches. But neither do I want that to be a country that denies its people (or large segments) their human rights. And neither do I want my own country's kids to fall behind. They're good, talented, bright kids. Our future as a nation depends on them. If we dumb down and fall down, then the world loses whatever our people could contribute to the world. -- How short-sighted can people be, not to be passionately in favor of a good education, including the arts and all those other factors, for their own kids? Bah! Or perhaps, "baa-baa, baa-baa." I would note the origin of the Greek word, barbaros, barbarian. It came from the sound sheep make, bar-bar, baa-baa. Thus, barbaros, wild, uncivilized, with all that implied to the Greeks or to us. Baa-baa, baa-baa, baah! Three bags full.

That's infotainment! (Yes, bad word. I shall go stand in the corner. And eat my popcorn and drink my Coke or Dr. Pepper or Mt. Dew.) I like popcorn and sodas. In fact, I need some popcorn on my grocery list. But I don't eat it too often. The nearest amateur/professional live theater group (Hey, I need to hunt up their schedule!) has a summer tradition, the summer Meller-Drammer. This is a play complete with a mustache-twirling villain (sometimes) and a damsel in distress (sometimes) (dis dress, dat dress...). The audience gets popcorn issued before they're seated, and they are encouraged to throw popcorn, boo, hiss, ooh, aah, laugh, cry, etc., to enjoy the play. ...Um, one year, I appreciated a lot that I was pretty dang sure one of the actors was gay. :) But um, I was too chicken to ask afterward, partly because I was with others who weren't, shall we say, receptive to such an eventuality. (I should've asked anyway, dang it!) That summer meller-drammer always helps bring in funding for the group and is always great fun for the audience. The poor troupe, of course, all have to help clean up after. But they enjoy the chance to ham it up and see the audience enjoy themselves. -- And the times I've gone to that troupe's plays, I've enjoyed it as much or more than any big-name productions, Theater Under The Stars included. ...I have to confess, I need to go to plays more. I R a bad liberal arts boi, I R. Otherwise, however, I dislike people dropping popcorn or drinks on the theater floor (movie too). Uh, I was brought up that you take your own dang bag and cup to the handy provided garbage can or take it home, thank you. :) That is called "civilized" and "neat" and "considerate." Oops, editorializing. I'll go stand in the corner. Blue's adolescent self really wished the other boy in Dragonslayer had really been a boy, and the water had been a little clearer and closer. Oh well.

Graeme has already brought it up, but I'd point out: The issue of same-sex couples raising children depends on a few things. Is the child a natural (biological) child of one of the parents, perhaps from a previous marriage/relationship? Or is the child a fostered or adopted child? Biological children may remain with a parent, or a parent may be given custody, especially if the other parent is unreliable, a bad risk. (Given my state's general views on homosexuality, it says something that, say, a lesbian parent I know was given custody of her two children from her previous marriage. The ex-husband was deemed unfit in some way.) With an overcrowded foster/adoptive/child-welfare/protective-services system, it may likewise be preferable to place a child with a same-sex couple, than for that child to remain in "the system" in group homes or the like. Again, the bias against same-sex persons as persons, couples, or parents still can enter into it, but the pressure on the system and the compassion and good sense of the social worker and judge can enter into it. Yes, there is still an attitude, at least among much of the public, that "they'll turn that poor child gay!" Um, no, that child's sexual orientation is his or her own, and he or she is not likely to wake up and "choose" to be gay or choose a "lifestyle." Not unless that child (or adolescent) happens to be gay anyway. In which case, it would give the young person a family who understand him or her and won't be prejudiced. -- My point is just that social and attitudinal factors, belief systems, enter into whether a same-sex couple can be parents. I don't know the figures for Texas. I'm curious. In Texas, yes, there are same-sex couples who have biological children, and likely many who are raising foster or adopted kids. That is one of the main things that got to me most as a teen, when I began realizing I was gay. I wanted a family and kids and I didn't believe I could have them. If I'd known a gay man or a gay couple could raise kids, it might've helped me accept myself a lot sooner. Good for those Mississippi couples. One Mippippippi, Two Mippippippi.... ;) (in-joke)