Show Posts

This section allows you to view all posts made by this member. Note that you can only see posts made in areas you currently have access to.

Messages - Cain

Pages: 1 ... 1488 1489 1490 [1491] 1492 1493 1494 ... 2053
Someone put a lot of effort into that.  What the hell for?  WTF? 

Harry Potter fangirls have...rather overactive imaginations.  To say the least.

In fact, this picture pretty much sums up the fandom as a whole:

Literate Chaotic / Re: I had a GREAT idea for a book
« on: May 20, 2009, 07:10:47 pm »
I was actually going to do something like that.  It was going to be a multiple POV story, and the "hero" was indeed one of the characters slated to get a piece of the narration - albeit at a much smaller amount than everyone else.  And it would showcase his delusions, though slowly (hence why his parts would not be as frequent).

I also drew a map today, which was fun.  I want to get the setting sorted before I put pen to paper on the detailed plot.

Literate Chaotic / Re: Unofficial What are you Reading Thread?
« on: May 20, 2009, 04:55:59 pm »
I think that book is called "The Thief of Time"

Techmology and Scientism / Re: ZOMG, THE MISSING LINK!!!
« on: May 20, 2009, 04:31:59 pm »
Clearly a fake placed there by Loki to test our Faith in Odin, the All-Father.

Yeah.  I thought that may have been the case, but hadn't seen any news confirmation of the fact.  Then again, I haven't been exactly looking for it today...

The Boing-Boing link itself links to more stories about this.  Other details include the fact the child is 4 years old, and that his right eye was still in the socket when it was damaged (that they mention nothing about the left eye...well, the implication is pretty clear).


A man in Bakersfield, California got high on PCP and ate his son's eyeballs out. Then the father attempted to hack his own legs off with an axe. The boy's mother, also a PCP user, came to the door just before the attack to deliver a pizza to their home, heard her son screaming for her to rescue him, but left anyway. We don't have a metadata tag that fits this story. It's been haunting me for days since I read it, even in dreams, which is why I'm finally blogging it now. Does PCP turn people into monsters, or do monsters simply turn to PCP? I can't figure it out. My god, that poor child.

GASM Command / Re: TwitterGASM
« on: May 18, 2009, 09:09:54 pm »
If Twitter has done one thing, it has proven my course is pretty sexy.  There are a lot of seriously attractive women studying IR out there.

Literate Chaotic / Re: so... whats the deal with TAZ?
« on: May 18, 2009, 07:50:43 pm »
Hakim Bey's was Temporary.

He may have been riffing off/paying homage to the Dada concept, though, it wouldn't surprise me.

Didn't really know where to drop this, so I'm going to put it in here:

Does the security of women influence the security and behavior of states? Existing evidence linking the situation of women to state-level variables such as economic prosperity and growth, health, and corruption is fairly conclusive. Questions remain, however, concerning the degree to which state security and state security-related behavior is linked to the security of women. The "women and peace" thesis draws upon evolutionary biology/psychology for ultimate causes of this linkage, and sociological theories of social diffusion and psychological theories of social learning for more proximate causal mechanisms. Together, a new data resource -- the WomanStats Database -- and conventional methodology find a robust, positive relationship between the physical security of women and three measures of state security and peacefulness. In addition, a comparison of this proposition to alternative explanations involving level of democracy, level of economic development, and civilizational identity shows that the physical security of women is a better predictor of state security and peacefulness. Although these results are preliminary, it is still possible to conclude that the security of women must not be overlooked in the study of state security, especially given that the research questions to be raised and the policy initiatives to be considered in the promotion of security will differ markedly if the security of women is seriously considered as a significant influence on state security.

I think the Slash-Signal just went out.

We totally need a Slashfic signal, maybe of Draco topping Harry Potter, to light up over Boston and let LMNO know his writing skills are needed.

Are you sure they're angry, and not just constipated?

Yeah, but the music  :x

Everytime someone says that, I imagine Gwen Stefani singing "This thread is Dildoes.  D-I-L-D-O-E-S" to the tune of Holla Back Girl.

I may need help.


The new constitution has put at rest, forever, all the agitating questions relating to our peculiar institution African slavery as it exists amongst us the proper status of the negro in our form of civilization. This was the immediate cause of the late rupture and present revolution. Jefferson in his forecast, had anticipated this, as the "rock upon which the old Union would split." He was right. What was conjecture with him, is now a realized fact. But whether he fully comprehended the great truth upon which that rock stood and stands, may be doubted. The prevailing ideas entertained by him and most of the leading statesmen at the time of the formation of the old constitution, were that the enslavement of the African was in violation of the laws of nature; that it was wrong in principle, socially, morally, and politically. It was an evil they knew not well how to deal with, but the general opinion of the men of that day was that, somehow or other in the order of Providence, the institution would be evanescent and pass away. This idea, though not incorporated in the constitution, was the prevailing idea at that time. The constitution, it is true, secured every essential guarantee to the institution while it should last, and hence no argument can be justly urged against the constitutional guarantees thus secured, because of the common sentiment of the day. Those ideas, however, were fundamentally wrong. They rested upon the assumption of the equality of races. This was an error. It was a sandy foundation, and the government built upon it fell when the "storm came and the wind blew."

Our new government is founded upon exactly the opposite idea; its foundations are laid, its corner- stone rests, upon the great truth that the negro is not equal to the white man; that slavery subordination to the superior race is his natural and normal condition. This, our new government, is the first, in the history of the world, based upon this great physical, philosophical, and moral truth. This truth has been slow in the process of its development, like all other truths in the various departments of science. It has been so even amongst us. Many who hear me, perhaps, can recollect well, that this truth was not generally admitted, even within their day. The errors of the past generation still clung to many as late as twenty years ago. Those at the North, who still cling to these errors, with a zeal above knowledge, we justly denominate fanatics. All fanaticism springs from an aberration of the mind from a defect in reasoning. It is a species of insanity. One of the most striking characteristics of insanity, in many instances, is forming correct conclusions from fancied or erroneous premises; so with the anti-slavery fanatics. Their conclusions are right if their premises were. They assume that the negro is equal, and hence conclude that he is entitled to equal privileges and rights with the white man. If their premises were correct, their conclusions would be logical and just but their premise being wrong, their whole argument fails. I recollect once of having heard a gentleman from one of the northern States, of great power and ability, announce in the House of Representatives, with imposing effect, that we of the South would be compelled, ultimately, to yield upon this subject of slavery, that it was as impossible to war successfully against a principle in politics, as it was in physics or mechanics. That the principle would ultimately prevail. That we, in maintaining slavery as it exists with us, were warring against a principle, a principle founded in nature, the principle of the equality of men. The reply I made to him was, that upon his own grounds, we should, ultimately, succeed, and that he and his associates, in this crusade against our institutions, would ultimately fail. The truth announced, that it was as impossible to war successfully against a principle in politics as it was in physics and mechanics, I admitted; but told him that it was he, and those acting with him, who were warring against a principle. They were attempting to make things equal which the Creator had made unequal.

Confederates during the Civil War had no problem whatsoever in associating their cause with the protection of slavery and a system of white supremacy which they thought was inherent in the Confederate world order. The Confederates of 1861-65 were much more honest about the importance of slavery than are the neo-Confederates of today.

In a famous address [known to historians as the "Cornerstone Speech"], the vice president of the Confederacy, Alexander Stephens, said in 1861 that "slavery is the cornerstone of the Confederacy." And as late as 1865, Robert E. Lee, who's often cited by neo-Confederates as an opponent of slavery, claimed that while blacks and whites were together in the South, their best relationship would be that of master and slave.

A great many Southerners were directly or indirectly involved in slavery they were either slaveholders, members of slaveholding families, or involved in business enterprises that depended upon slavery for their prosperity.

Some neo-Confederates talk about differing federal policies toward the North and the South, but again those federal policies especially if they concern the South have to do with the support of slavery, the acquisition of new territory which would be open to slaveholders, a tariff policy which favored the North.

Racism against African-Americans was a national problem, not a regional problem. The white South could never have gotten away with as much as it did in terms of white supremacy had there not been a large number of white Northerners who supported racist policies.

But now neo-Confederates say, "Well, you guys were racist, too, and in fact the real racism is in the North." And at the same time, they say, "There is no racism in the South." Well, you really can't have it both ways.

But again, the war is fought not over racial equality at least among American whites but over slavery, the political advantages that white Southerners had because of slavery. The war is about slavery and its political and economic impact on American society, not just Southern society.

Southerners are very much aware when they support secession in 1860-61 that they are seceding to protect slavery and white supremacy and that that is something that should interest not only slaveholders but also non-slaveholding whites.

The neo-Confederates construct an "other" of mainstream academic scholarship that supposedly says that the North fought to end slavery and that the South was uniquely racist. But you don't find a lot of mainstream scholars who embrace any of that.

In fact, most mainstream academics embrace the idea that racism was an American problem, and that Union soldiers went to war in 1861 primarily to save the Union, not to destroy slavery. In other words, the historical stereotype that the neo-Confederates war against basically doesn't exist.

Pages: 1 ... 1488 1489 1490 [1491] 1492 1493 1494 ... 2053