Shannon Larratt is Zentastic

First of all, a minor BMEfest improvement: I grabbed a rental (from the folks who are setting up the tent and stage) of five 8' tables and about 50 patio chairs. It's not going to be enough for everyone so totally feel free to bring some lawn chairs but it will give folks a place to sit while they're eating… Today I have to make a list (fairly short at this point) of all the stuff I have to do before the BBQ still.

Warning: If you break these chairs, I'm going to expect you to cover the damage. So don't get drunk if you don't think you can restrain yourself from breaking stuff.

Anyway, last night I installed the latest google toolbar and it brought me to looking at the various “related” pages. 22 pages were considered to be similar to my IAM page. Most of them were not really any surprise. On the first page it was various bod mod sites, and then some anti-war and general kookiness like the Church of Euthanasia… but the one that struck me was #21: Blondie: The Official Site. I believe that's what's called being in good company.

I also came across this wildly misleading statement in this essay:

The 1999 murder of Philip Bondy arouses revulsion not for the fact that he was killed by an unlicensed ex-doctor with a history of botching underground surgeries, but rather because the victim was an amputation fetishist.

The article continues to refer to these subjects with negative terms such as “mutilation” over “modification” and by using words like “victim” when it should say “client”. For example, what actually happened in the case above is that Bondy, a dying old man who's life dream was to lose his leg approached Dr. Brown to do the procedure. Dr. Brown had lost his license not for being a bad doctor, but for being a politically edgy doctor who pioneered sex changes before they were “common”. He did Bondy's procedure not to “murder” him, but do grant the wish of a dying man, in effect at the expense of his own freedom and career.

Just remember, even the academic media will gladly misrepresent the facts of a case if it suits their personal bias. I say “remember” because people tend to assume when they're being interviewed by them that they'll be treated with some semblence of fairness… Don't bet on it… In my experience, self proclaimed academics are less likely to give you a fair representation than a pop reporter is. I believe this is because they come into the interview with their own notions of what you mean and are simply talking to you to be able to create quotes that illustrate their case (not yours, or the truth's).

And don't even get me started on queer theory academics…

In other news, attacks on US forces in Iraq continue to go strong (more), and the White House continues to stand by its ludicrous claims that it has found WMDs in Iraq (more) even though the State Department denies it, and a British firm admits selling the trailors and has explained their real (non-WMD) use. Condie Rice has once again threatened unilateral military action (ie. US only, in a plan she calls “Made in America”) against Iran and North Korea (more), with Bush refocussing his efforts on oil-rich areas of Africa, threatening now to “liberate” Liberia (more).

Oh, and the UN inspectors finally confirmed that Iraq did not in fact restart its nuke program (more), but who really cares. It's not as if they had al Qaeda ties either (more). They had oil, brown skin, mustaches, the occasional turban, a dictator, whatever. Pick a reason; it's clear that it's not about actually believing it… just about saying it on TV. People are so fucking stupid that they'll believe just about anything on FOX.

Now they're saying that “the reason we couldn't find the biological weapons is because bacteria are really small and basically invisible.” (more)… That's not even a bad joke; it's straight from the mouth of Senate Majority Leader Bill First.

I don't know who's been watching that lame but drama-drawing “reality” show Paradise Hotel, but one of its catches is that “you could be on the show!” Their first “audience member” is a messed-up over-top obnoxious ugly dude. But here's the kicker… they tell you that you can be on the next episode, and then not thirty seconds later do they show the coming up next week on Paradise Hotel segment. What, are we supposed to believe in time travel?

I mean, if they've already shot next week's episode, and they're already showing the audience selection scenes, the obviously you can't really be on it since you'd have to have been there in the past to shoot the scene you just watched. But who cares. Given the crazy crap people believe on the news, why not believe this too I suppose?

But, assuming Bush doesn't kickstart the apocalypse, we all know what's going to happen in 2004. Some centrist Democrat will get elected, corrections will be made economically, some of the freedoms taken away via Patriot and so on will be restored, and everyone will cheering, but nothing will change. I mean, I agree that Clinton was a better President than both Bush's added up, but ultimately his foreign policy was equally warmongering and he played up to the defense sector just as much, and the realistic Democratic Presidential candidates all have pledged to continue that funding.

I think what American's don't realize is that both their domestic policy and their place in the world (which ultimately dictates their economy, their job market, and so on) is determined largely by their foreign policy. Which to me indicates that if America wants to pull itself out of this quicksand it's found itself in, it's going to have to bite the bullet and vote for a real radical… but unfortunately we all know that it's going to be some wishy-washy politician that gets put in power, and all the problems will continue under a slightly different coloured banner and nothing more.

Worth looking at:
Why you should support Kucinich

Well, at least Cheney's getting rich (more).

The fireworks just got here for the BMEfest BBQ. I made sure to grab all of the “just made legal in Canada” new products and also a pile of big sparklers for people… Thanks again to our friends at Kaboom who I think are now supplying us for the fourth year in a row! I definitely highly recommend them; always excellent product and customer service.

Just got a call from the fireworks company; all of that has been shipped and they've promised that it'll be an awesome show with what they've loaded three giant boxes full of munitions with.

I think I might ditch these contacts I've been trying today. My vision really isn't that bad; I can get by fine without either glasses or contacts, so there's no “need” issues. And, to be honest, I think I might just kind of like wearing glasses. I think I wear glasses that are fairly timeless and don't go out of style (perfectly round ones), but I was wondering about dated looks in general…

When a hairstyle is in fashion, or a style of clothing or glasses or whatever, do people at the time realize that it's going to look dated in a few years (or less)? I mean, it seems obvious now looking back on things what's a trend and what's not, but as someone who's never subscribed to trendiness I wonder if people who do understand its impermanence, and whether that might even be one of the drawing factors?

Maybe this silly drawing will make up for the inanity of this entry:

Reminder: Today is voting day at the MoveOn.org PAC… Kucinich (more) totally has my vote…