Am-I-Dumb.com - Intelligence Test
18 May 2008
14 May 2008
Finally got my hair cut
So Mom paid for me to get my hair done today--finally!
Here's the most recent picture I have of me before the cut (it was taken approximately one month ago so you'll have to imagine my hair approximately another half-inch longer, not that you can really tell how long it was in the photo because my hair becomes curly when it gets long--stepping out of the shower with my hair soaking wet, my hair would hit the nape of my back (you know, that spot between your shoulder blades where there's like a "hole" in your back right below the shoulders), which is pretty darned long--and I hadn't bothered to shave in a while):
And here we are this afternoon, after the cut (Mom took this photo of me with my camera phone, a Sprint Sanyo MM-8300 -- completely outdated but I'm waiting for the 2.0 megapixel camera phones to come out before I upgrade):
And here we are inside; I took this one myself, so it's not quite as good, and the lighting was kinda crappy. Plus it's a camera phone pic, so whaddya want from me?
Not having hair with split ends that's unmanageably long (however did I wear my hair that length in high school?????) has done wonders for my self-image. Now, if only I could afford to get it coloured again. We'll have to check into that. But my Depression (with a Capital "D") lifted a little today after the cut.
As you can see in the last picture, it's still a bit curly. I asked him to leave it long-ish. I'm going to have to see if I can get it to be a wee bit less curly (perhaps with less humidity and more gel?), as I usually prefer it to be wavy. But maybe now I can do stuff with my hair again and not have it look all unkempt and wild and what not.
Details: My hair was cut & styled by "Larry" At Domani Hair Spa, 12 Seneca Road, Bloomfield, CT 06002. The price was reasonable--about what I was expecting to have to pay for a salon shampoo, cut & style, although it wasn't nearly as "luxurious" as some of the NY salons can be (no free coffee/tea/finger foods, etc.) I would recommend him. He wasn't overly chatty but he was friendly and he did do a good job, don't you think?
All in all it was a pleasant day out with Mom, and I'm feeling a little bit better about myself. Yay!
Here's the most recent picture I have of me before the cut (it was taken approximately one month ago so you'll have to imagine my hair approximately another half-inch longer, not that you can really tell how long it was in the photo because my hair becomes curly when it gets long--stepping out of the shower with my hair soaking wet, my hair would hit the nape of my back (you know, that spot between your shoulder blades where there's like a "hole" in your back right below the shoulders), which is pretty darned long--and I hadn't bothered to shave in a while):
And here we are this afternoon, after the cut (Mom took this photo of me with my camera phone, a Sprint Sanyo MM-8300 -- completely outdated but I'm waiting for the 2.0 megapixel camera phones to come out before I upgrade):
And here we are inside; I took this one myself, so it's not quite as good, and the lighting was kinda crappy. Plus it's a camera phone pic, so whaddya want from me?
Not having hair with split ends that's unmanageably long (however did I wear my hair that length in high school?????) has done wonders for my self-image. Now, if only I could afford to get it coloured again. We'll have to check into that. But my Depression (with a Capital "D") lifted a little today after the cut.As you can see in the last picture, it's still a bit curly. I asked him to leave it long-ish. I'm going to have to see if I can get it to be a wee bit less curly (perhaps with less humidity and more gel?), as I usually prefer it to be wavy. But maybe now I can do stuff with my hair again and not have it look all unkempt and wild and what not.
Details: My hair was cut & styled by "Larry" At Domani Hair Spa, 12 Seneca Road, Bloomfield, CT 06002. The price was reasonable--about what I was expecting to have to pay for a salon shampoo, cut & style, although it wasn't nearly as "luxurious" as some of the NY salons can be (no free coffee/tea/finger foods, etc.) I would recommend him. He wasn't overly chatty but he was friendly and he did do a good job, don't you think?
All in all it was a pleasant day out with Mom, and I'm feeling a little bit better about myself. Yay!
08 May 2008
MTV Networks launches video hub for gay community | Tech news blog - CNET News.com
MTV Networks launches video hub for gay community | Tech news blog - CNET News.com
From the article:
From the article:
"This is the kind of content that has only been available at art houses," Sherman said. "But the LGBT (lesbian, gay, bisexual, and transgender) audience, can now check out content that has never been available to them nationally."
Some of the full-episode shows that can be found at Logoonline.com are Big Gay Sketch, Noah's Arc, and Outlaugh Festival on Wisecrack. Documentaries include Elephant in the Room and The Two Cubas.
There are also short clips, news, and music.
06 May 2008
Senator Santorum gets the history of marriage law wrong
One of my Gather.com buddies pointed out this article to me and straight away I noticed a glaring error. I tried to find a forum to post a comment to the article, and instead could only find a general e-mail address to the web site; I couldn't even find a link to e-mail the individual interviewer/research fellow.
I appreciate that this web site is providing both sides of the story; however, I hold firm the belief that it is a journalist's responsibility to do their fact-checking and point out any errors or omissions in the facts contained in their publication.
Here's the e-mail that I sent to Pew Research:
Hi I couldn't find a way to comment on your articles. I write specifically in reference to your article entitled "Two perspectives on gay marriage."
There is a factual error in Senator Santorum's argument. He states,
In reality, the laws regarding marriage are not as they have been for 200-plus years. The most glaring example of this is the recent modification of marriage law when the United State Supreme Court ruled anti-miscegenation laws to be illegal in Loving v. Virginia, 388 U.S. 1 (1967). Additionally, the Loving case affirmed and upheld the fact that marriage is a fundamental right, so the burden is not on "them to make the persuasive case as to why they should be married" but rather the burden is on the government to prove a compelling interest as to why same-sex couples should not be married (e.g., any restrictions upon marriage are subject to a strict scrutiny standard of legal review).
The rest of Senator Santorum's interview is opinion and therefore I cannot comment as to the veracity of his statements. However, I do believe it would be a great disservice to your readers were you not to point out the factual inaccuracies in Senator Santorum's statements, and either include an editor's note or allow the Senator a chance to correct his mistakes.
Please note that I will include a copy of this e-mail, in part, on my blog.
Thank you for your time,
-Peter C. Frank
As many of you who have been reading my blog for quite some time know, same-sex marriage is an issue I've written about on other occasions, and I believe it to be of great importance to the gay rights movement, of which I consider myself a minuscule part.
The fact that Senator Santorum, a graduate of the Dickinson School of Law, would make such a glaring error leave one to wonder whether the error was intentional, as one would imagine that Senator Santorum would have done at least preliminary research on this issue before speaking publicly about the subject, and certainly his omission would have appeared in any preliminary research on marriage law. In fact, a search using the Google search engine returns the Loving case when searching under "marriage law" within the top 50 results.
And lest we not forget the importance of Loving to the matter of same-sex marriage, religious and social views were held to be the main reasons as to why Virginia's anti-miscegenation laws were upheld by the lower courts. Sound familiar?
But my point here isn't to argue the same-sex marriage issue; rather, it's to point out that marriage has not always been defined as between a man and a woman. Rather, it used to be defined as between a white man and a white woman, or a black man and a black woman, or what not. And before that, I'm certain there were other definitions. And the laws with respect to marriage have evolved over the past 200 plus years. For instance, in many states, polygamy was legal.
So as society evolves, so do the laws that govern society. Shame on you, Senator Santorum, for attempting to trick your audience into thinking anything to the contrary!
I appreciate that this web site is providing both sides of the story; however, I hold firm the belief that it is a journalist's responsibility to do their fact-checking and point out any errors or omissions in the facts contained in their publication.
Here's the e-mail that I sent to Pew Research:
Hi I couldn't find a way to comment on your articles. I write specifically in reference to your article entitled "Two perspectives on gay marriage."
There is a factual error in Senator Santorum's argument. He states,
See, I think that's the foundational flaw with this whole debate. The law is as it has been for 200-plus years, and so the burden is on them to make the persuasive case as to why they should be married, not just for their benefit but for what the impact is on society and marriage as a whole, and on children.
In reality, the laws regarding marriage are not as they have been for 200-plus years. The most glaring example of this is the recent modification of marriage law when the United State Supreme Court ruled anti-miscegenation laws to be illegal in Loving v. Virginia, 388 U.S. 1 (1967). Additionally, the Loving case affirmed and upheld the fact that marriage is a fundamental right, so the burden is not on "them to make the persuasive case as to why they should be married" but rather the burden is on the government to prove a compelling interest as to why same-sex couples should not be married (e.g., any restrictions upon marriage are subject to a strict scrutiny standard of legal review).
The rest of Senator Santorum's interview is opinion and therefore I cannot comment as to the veracity of his statements. However, I do believe it would be a great disservice to your readers were you not to point out the factual inaccuracies in Senator Santorum's statements, and either include an editor's note or allow the Senator a chance to correct his mistakes.
Please note that I will include a copy of this e-mail, in part, on my blog.
Thank you for your time,
-Peter C. Frank
As many of you who have been reading my blog for quite some time know, same-sex marriage is an issue I've written about on other occasions, and I believe it to be of great importance to the gay rights movement, of which I consider myself a minuscule part.
The fact that Senator Santorum, a graduate of the Dickinson School of Law, would make such a glaring error leave one to wonder whether the error was intentional, as one would imagine that Senator Santorum would have done at least preliminary research on this issue before speaking publicly about the subject, and certainly his omission would have appeared in any preliminary research on marriage law. In fact, a search using the Google search engine returns the Loving case when searching under "marriage law" within the top 50 results.
And lest we not forget the importance of Loving to the matter of same-sex marriage, religious and social views were held to be the main reasons as to why Virginia's anti-miscegenation laws were upheld by the lower courts. Sound familiar?
But my point here isn't to argue the same-sex marriage issue; rather, it's to point out that marriage has not always been defined as between a man and a woman. Rather, it used to be defined as between a white man and a white woman, or a black man and a black woman, or what not. And before that, I'm certain there were other definitions. And the laws with respect to marriage have evolved over the past 200 plus years. For instance, in many states, polygamy was legal.
So as society evolves, so do the laws that govern society. Shame on you, Senator Santorum, for attempting to trick your audience into thinking anything to the contrary!
Kidspeak
I wrote this during one of my hospitalizations, in honour of my niece, Jennal.
Kidspeak
Dribble dribble dribble
drazzle
drip drip drip
PLOP
drip drip drip
drazzle
drizzle drizzle fizzle.
Putt Putt Putt
Revvv
Putt Putt
Rev
Putt
VROOOOOoooooommmmm
Putt Putt Pfizzle Putt
Puff Puff Puff
Singularity
Puff Puff Drip Puff
Mechanics
Puff Puff Puff
Quantum Equations drive
Linear Compression algorithms
Puff Putter Putter Puff Piddle
Puff Puff Pfwiddle diddle little
Middle Meddle Faddle
Little Fiddle
Schwimm Schwamm
Faddle Faddle Meddle Middle
Little Fiddle
Synchronized Sycophant Symphonies
Swing in the Breeze of
Exhaust created by
Temporal Drive Machinations
Parliamentary Proscribed Penundrums
Expertly Executed by
Deus Ex Machina
Semper, Semper, Excelsior!
Veni Vidi Vici
(Fiddle Puff Faddle Drip)
Make headway to the mainstay
(Puff Puff)
And don't stray
(Waddle Widdle Waddle)
'Lest one day
(Widdle Widdle Waddle)
you won't be around
(Drip Drop Drip Drip)
to see another May
(Fiddle Drop Drip Faddle)
Waddle Widdle
Puff
Puff
Puff
poof.
copyright (c) 2007, Peter C. Frank
05 May 2008
R.I.P., Mildred Loving
I just posted an article on the death of Mildred Loving over on my other blog site, Gather.com. Read about it over there, comment here, there, wherever. But most importantly, please take a moment of your time to remember this great, strong woman who stood up in the face of injustice and fought for what she believed to be right and just.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)