Wednesday, March 21, 2007

Stargate Atlantis

You might think it strange to like a spin off show when you have never really watched the original. I don't care. I like Stargate Atlantis despite its obvious flaws and have watched all of the first season, as of today, and will as soon as possible have finished the second season. I like the new guy they introduced. Its so rare for me to like the new person. But this guy seems cool. Hopefully he won't disappoint me. And I like the bad guys. They are creepy.

In the second season (warning spoilers) there is an episode where one Rodney gets combined with another person (sort of he can only hear her in his head) which is vaguely reminiscent of the Start Trek problems with transporter technology. I like the girl though I hope they keep her too. (but she wasn't in the credits)

I think its fun to have a main cast but I think a lot of shows rely too heavily on them. Like in The Star Trek spin off Voyager with Captain Janeway they had two of the characters combine to form a single person called Tuvix. I liked him he had personality and interacted well with others and Janeway in typical Janeway fashion killed him. Talk about amoral. I shiver at the thought of her. I was so excited that there was a woman as captain. A woman. But she is so awful and everyone seems to over look all of her bad decisions. Because of her gender "Shes a strong leader" and it pisses me off. I don't think someone should be excluded from harsh judgments because of their gender. I think they should be judged on their merit. James T Kirk was a crappy captain and a sexist bastard. Captain Sisco of deep space nine is okay. Captain Pickard was a fair if stodgy captain he took into account other peoples opinions and acted in the way he felt was moral. He would never have made a decision about a crew member such as Tuvix and killed him just because as she said "we need those two people separate" the ships needs would have come separate to the individuals need in that instance. Tuvix was a new life. And one who was very happy in his new form. Destroying him was wrong. None of the other captain except James T Kirk would have done that. Even if you look at captains outside of the star trek universe I don't think they would have sanctioned such a decision.

In her personal life she plays favorites and holds grudges. There is how she plays on the feelings of her second in command Chakotee (sp?) to keep him in line. She basically invites him to think of her as a woman (and he really likes her ) and then whenever he acts on the signals she gives him she tells him that it is inappropriate and reprimands him. I think that's low.

I can't remember in detail all of her horrible decisions. Sometimes it is not so much the decision as the way she issues orders and can't handle it if anyone even questions her at all. Part of life is being questions and it shows that people trust you when they can bring things to you and tell you how they see the situation. She never sees it that way, if you question her you are wrong, end of discussion.

I understand that she is tactically brilliant but I do believe if I remember rightly it was her decision that got them stuck out a thousand light years form home in the first place.

Also when she parlayed with the Borg. That one got a lot of people killed. Even as it got them Seven of Nine. Who I like. I feel Janeway mistreats her on the show. Janeway spent episode after episode telling Seven of Nine to trust her instincts and think for herself, be independent, as Janeway says 'more human' and then when Seven of Nine dose and it thwarts Janeway. Janeway said "You just don't understand, you aren't human." Completely unfair.

Yep basically I think Janeway is a crappy captain and I don't think its because of her gender. I think its because she sucks.

Tuesday, March 20, 2007

Separate Beds

Separate Beds

I considered marriage once. Now I'm not sure I will again. My mom says that the most important element of marriage is courage but when I was engaged I thought it was compromise. I compromised on everything.

Sleep is an important thing to me. Without it I turn into a com pleat idiot and a grumpy one at that. I get diarrhea and headaches and will catch colds at the drop of a hat. I know this because after the worst break up of my life, I had the bed to myself, after two weeks I felt better than I had in three or four years. Imagine my surprise that all the crabbiness and illness was from the fact that I hadn't been able to sleep with another person in the same bed.

I once asked my ex if we could have separate beds for those nights when he had to be up at 5 in the morning and didn't want to get up and let his alarm clock ring for 30 min. Or it would have been nice when he came home at three on the days when I had to be up at 5 in the morning. Or when he was so drunk he pissed in the bed. Or he had gas so bad the whole room was completely unlivable. Yet you know what he said?

"If we had separate beds I'd feel you didn't love me." And that was that. In order for our relationship to continue I had to sleep in the same bed.

I wish I had said "Okay. I don't love you. I'm moving out", but I didn't, I put up with the pee and the skid marks and the sweat and the gas and the smell of cigarettes and reconstituted alcohol because I loved him and I didn't want something as small as sharing a bed to get in the way of our relationship.

Yet it wasn’t small. Getting to know someone in such detail that you can guess what they ate by the smell that comes off them as they sleep really really puts me off. I didn't want to have sex after awhile. It was gross. A little mystery would have been nice. So would some sleep.

Now of course I wonder how am I going to tell the next person that wants me to stay the night "Normally when I sleep I talk and I toss and I turn but when someone else is in the bed I don't sleep well at all. I would really rather not lie awake next to you as you sleep, I'm really sorry but that wont work for me."

I looked it up online. There are people who don't sleep in the same bed. But of course the experts all say you should. That it deepens the relationship. Baa humbug.

Thursday, March 15, 2007


I watched a Nova documentary about Ko-ko the gorilla. Everyone remembers her, because she was all over the news 'the gorilla who learned sign language'. (she was really sweet too) Science was so confident that they had done something amazing but apparently gorillas learn sign language as babies and that’s how they communicate with other gorillas so it was not so amazing as they thought. They were using something inate and adapting it to talk like humans. So now there is a huge debate in the linguistic field about how human babies learn language. There are those in the field who say that it is all innate however it has been proven that without the input of human voice during a child's growing years they will not learn to talk. So is it innate or is it as some people say taught?

Well hear is my thought. You knew I had one. They do lots of experiments on rats and mice I cant remember whether this experiment was done on one or the other but I will use mice from now on. It was in a great book called "True nature A theory of sexual attraction" Apparently baby male mice who are genetically altered not to have a particular chemical or gene (cant remember which) do not make proper 'male' gestures like Penile thrusting. However if they have the proper chemical or gene they will have penile thrusting. This led scientists to believe that men have certain characteristics that make them men that they are born with. However it was blown out of the water when they realized that without the mother mouse giving the baby male mouse genital grooming they could have all the chemicals or genes they wanted the poor male mouse wouldn't be capable of reproducing. Turns out you need both the nature and the nurture.

My supposition is with out the chemicals and the brain stuff you can't talk without the human interaction you cant talk and if the human interaction is fucked up (abuse) you learn to talk but not as well as you could. (Just talk to people who have been abused. Its almost painfully obvious) So Just like the song birds who have to have 14 chemical receptors line up before they can sing we have to have a lot of things line up before we can talk or be social creatures.

Wednesday, March 14, 2007


I'm not sure that I am not unduly influenced by the things that I read.

I found a book at the library "The Gentle Art of Verbal Self Defense at Work", and there was a very interesting chapter about public speaking. As some of you may know I am very interested in politics, and I have thought a time or two about the prospect of becoming active in local politics a time or two. But my natural shyness and the whole prospect of having a microphone shoved in my face has really put me off. But something about this book brought it back, perhaps it is the quite calm collected way she writes about how to prepare for a speech and how to make yourself a pubic person by becoming an expert in a subject. This appeals to me. Not the public-ness but the expertness in a small field. I would have to pick the field of course and try to become knowledgeable. Which I know I can do.

But then there is one more hurdle, how to become someone asked to talk. I immediately thought of Toastmasters. There is a local Toastmasters.

I will admit that not that long ago I thought that the Toastmasters club was about grilled bread. The other meaning of the word toast just never occurred to me. So I had not seriously considered joining. Well now I am.


I went to the meeting of the Toastmasters in Moscow. I was impressed. It was a well run and nice group. I think it would be a good thing for me. So why you ask am I contemplating not going next week?

Because it would cost 50 dollars that's why. Kidding? Nope. Twenty is the start up fee which you can negotiate to pay in installments but it is 30 bucks every 6 months. I don't mind making the commitment of time. One hour each week. I wouldn't mind spending ten bucks each time I show up (so that after 5 weeks I don't pay anymore but 50 bucks up front when I'm not entirely comfortable? That's 7 hours of work. More than I make a day. (I work a four hour shift) I do want to but I've signed on for things like this before only to go once or twice and waste the money. Cause once you pay its not like you can get it back but its not like I can make myself go either. I will think long and hard about this.

Tuesday, March 13, 2007


The only practical meaning an utterance has in the real world is the meaning the listener understands it to have.

--Suzette Haden Elgin

Sunday, March 11, 2007

New Name for Pro-Choice

Its official. We need to come up with a new name for the Pro-choice side of the argument of Abortion. I was reading "The Gentle Art of Verbal Self-Defence at Work" (which is good) and she talks about how the opposite of Pro life is pro-death. And I can say right now I don't think that sounds good. Pro-choice doesn't have a leg to stand on against that. The bastards on the side of totalitarian ideas, have the catchy name. Which is very important when people think about an issue.

I was thinking Anti-totalitarian, But something with pro is probably more positive sounding. I'll keep working on this and post again.


I have come up with:

Pro-Rights or Pro-Human Rights
Pro-individuality or, Pro individual-rights

I think we need to sit on this awhile and think. But then... we must act...

Friday, March 9, 2007

This Weeks US News

I love how magazines have there cover news story at the back of the issue in an attempt to get people to read the whole thing. I think that's kind of backwards. They have nothing of interest at the beginning and all the substance at the end. If you can call a lot of what they put in substance. The cover story this week is collages. They ask "Are you getting what you paid for?" I skimmed the article. It was kind of dull, and I didn't see that they actually answered the question nor did it seem incredibility in depth.

There was a two page explanation of whats going on in Chechnya. Something I'd never herd about before. I wish more articles were about not just the now of the situation but the history of the problem too. Not everyone reads the news or remembers everything about everything. Apparently Chechnya is having some serious problems with its government and Islamic fundamentalism. I read it with a troubled mind. It seems that the Russians are always being oppressed by people in power, yet there also seems to me a sort of general discontent of the Russian populous as well. I wonder if its because the land has so little to offer.

Now you can lone people money through Prosper on the web. You go an check out peoples profiles where they detail why they need the money and then the system allows you to put a bid on the business or loan and eventually they get the lone or not and you get interest back from them over time. Its like being a bank from your own home. I looked at the site and it seems like a good idea. Not that think I want to invest or have money to invest but hay.

Rudy McRomney is a waffler. He has a track record all over the place but apparently he has taken a hard line against abortion and gay people and is going for the right wing conservative vote. Yuck. I don't know why everyone has to pander to people who they don't even know. I think these constituent polls are skewed. After all you never get to poll people who hang up on the pollsters, or people who screen there phone call or never pay attention to the news or answer polls. That's a certain type of person. And they defiantly can't be the average person can they? Who has time for that? So why can't politicians pick things based on how they actually see the issues... if they feel abortion is wrong they vote against it. If the think that abortion is wrong but stem cell research should continue vote for it. Instead they roll over to the church lobbyists and say "Oh! I'm sorry I don't know what I was thinking. Please give me money." If they based there policy's based on there personal rather than everyone else's personal preferences they would not only be a lot more constant but also a lot more trustworthy too. Of course this would mean no one was allowed to give them money. Well scrap that idea.