Tuesday, November 30, 2004

We need a new word, really

The first definition for the word redundant on Dictionary.com reads:

1. Exceeding what is necessary or natural; superfluous

I mention this only because I'm a bit of a computer geek, and in the dark, dreary recesses of the computer network rooms, the word redundant always refers to the repetition of hardware as a protection against system failures. So, in the computer geek world, redundancy is anything but "superfluous" or unnecessarily repetitive.

Post a Comment


It was one of those moments...

when I was reminded of something completely unrelated. While I was typing "Blogs of Interest" in the last post, I could hear the Futurama narrator saying "Tales of Interest". Just abject silliness in the middle of a serious post.

So, then I'm searching for a link to drop in this post, and Google confronts me with: GotFuturama.com, a Fox Futurama Site, TV Tome, and our friendly neighborhood Internet Movie Database. These are only a few of "about 1,970,000" that Google found.

Self-references to note: Frank Welker was the voice of some of the characters on Futurama, which is why I'm still hearing voices, and, of course, the reference to the Internet Movie Database in the Token Opposition post that's in the August archive.

Ah, "I love it when a plan comes together". -gratuitous A-Team reference.

Post a Comment


Losing my religion...

The evangelicals are a-comin'!!

Aren't they just everywhere since the election? The following is a passage from a New York Times op/ed piece about John Stott.

There's been a lot of twaddle written recently about the supposed opposition between faith and reason. To read Stott is to see someone practicing "thoughtful allegiance" to scripture. For him, Christianity means probing the mysteries of Christ. He is always exploring paradoxes. Jesus teaches humility, so why does he talk about himself so much? What does it mean to gain power through weakness, or freedom through obedience? In many cases the truth is not found in the middle of apparent opposites, but on both extremes simultaneously.

Stott is so embracing it's always a bit of a shock - especially if you're a Jew like me - when you come across something on which he will not compromise. It's like being in "Mr. Rogers' Neighborhood," except he has a backbone of steel. He does not accept homosexuality as a legitimate lifestyle, and of course he believes in evangelizing among nonbelievers. He is pro-life and pro-death penalty, even though he is not a political conservative on most issues.

The relationship of Evangelical Christians to America is something that I would like to explore in this space a little further. There is a very good site that I've been meaning to look into in more detail: www.truthgirl.com. The person who created the site refers to herself as a converted evangelical. She's dedicating the site to helping Democrats and liberals to understand, and ultimately "convert", evangelicals. The site was one of Eric Zorn's recommended "Blogs of Interest".

Post a Comment


Wednesday, November 17, 2004

OOoo, it sounds "Edgy"

Hey, who doesn't want coffee with an attitude?

Well, apparently some small towns don't.

I'm not much of a coffee drinker to begin with, but I definitely don't want any ass coffee. Especially not bad ass coffee. I guess it all depends on how you emphasize the words.

Do you think they had a hard time getting their domain name?

Post a Comment


Thursday, November 04, 2004

Okay, it's not that bad...

Eric Zorn linked to this from his notebook. There's no need to start researching the hangman's knot, well...unless you're planning to go fishing. In the blog posting, James Wolcott alludes to _The Plot Against America_. I think I have something more to read. It reminds me somewhat of _Fatherland_, albeit from a more American standpoint.

I'm not going to panic, yet. Obviously, due to Rehnquist's illness, the President will be appointing at least one member to the Supreme Court, but there could be more in the next four years. As one blogger pointed out, the next four years will be squarely the responsibility of the current Republican administration. With a Republican House, Senate, and White House, they will be completely responsible for everything. There will be no blaming Clinton, or Democrats in Congress for preventing whatever initiatives they propose.

Post a Comment