Cute kitteh and banned videos--Random Friday! :D
Current mood: insubordinate
Well, you can't have a Random Friday here without a cute kitteh; so here's the Cute Kitteh of the Week! =^^=
I got to thinking...last month was Banned Books Month...
It got me to remembering the 80s. Back when MTV was in its "salad days," some videos were "too controversial" to air in the daytime--you had to wait 'til after 10 or 11 o'clock to see 'em.
It's kind of interesting to remember which videos were controversial back then. (Nowadays, they'd barely raise an eyebrow...but lots has changed in the last quarter-century.)
So I thought I'd just post a few videos I remember as on the "banned from daytime" list...(See if you can guess why it was "controversial")
First up: Ronnie James Dio, The Last in Line (1984):
Banned from daytime for..."satanic themes."
Next up: the Bronski Beat's Smalltown Boy (1984):
Banned from daytime for..."homosexual themes"
And, last up: Public Enemy, Fight the Power (1989)
Banned from daytime for..."inflammatory racial themes" (this, btw, came out the same summer as Spike Lee's film, Do the Right Thing--it's actually on the movie sountrack)
So, anyhoo, those are some "banned from daytime in the 80s" vids.
Are there any controversial videos/books/songs that you remember from your Young Dayz?
The Whole World is Watching
Current mood: thoughtful
This is a daunting blog to write. Because I know that no words could ever really capture the heights of What Has Happened. To paraphrase Lincoln: history will quickly forget everything which was said yesterday--but history will never forget what America did yesterday.
Last night, I was watching the returns with some other peeps. He mentioned how closely Jamaica was following the American election.
I tried to make a comparison: "I wonder if it's like the moon landing in 1969. For four days, the rocket hurtled towards the moon. All systems were 'go'. Everyone was confident. But, still, everyone wondered: Would it really happen? Could something go wrong?"
Then Neil Armstrong took his historic steps. "And," I said, "around the world, everyone shook their heads in wonder, and said: 'Wow! The sons of bitches actually DID IT!'"
My chatting partner LOLed and nodded. Then he repeated my last line to some other peeps, who LOLed, too. (I like causing LULZ )
Apparently, I wasn't the only one thinking about that moon shot in '69. The cover of today's London Sun says it all:
I wanted to know how the rest of the world saw our Giant Leap last night. So I went over to the website Press Display, where you can see images of the world's front-pages.
Many papers spoke to the culmination of MLK's Dream. In Cyprus, for instance...
But I really liked the creative image fashioned by Mexico's national paper, El Universal.
Oh, I had to look up the verb, "aplastar." It means "to crush." So I guess the translation would be "Obama's Crush [of McCain]." (Irene and Pikachu will correct me if I'm wrong )
Newspapers in Europe often hit deadline before the election results were in. So Belgium creatively hedged their cover-page
Oh, and since I gotta represent my peeps, here's Ireland's cover page:
Unsurprisingly, many papers picked up on the History Theme. Quite a few of the other British papers emphasize history or time or a new world. Here's a sampler:
(LOL @ "Yanks Very Much!" )
Well, I could go on and on, but the message is clear: The world is breathless to realize that 'the Americans actually DID IT!'"
One last thought.
I found myself thinking about the timing of this election. This decade began with an event which shook America's confidence to its core on 9-11. As the decade unfurled, we witnessed all kinds of dispiriting failures and outrages, at home (Katrina) and abroad (Iraq). Now the decade ends with an event which promises to redeem--and transform-- Americans' faith in America, our image of ourselves.
The challenges ahead are daunting. The New President will need every bit of goodwill he can summon. As I watched Obama take his place in History, I found myself thinking of the awesome responsibilities which will fall to him next January 20th. I was reminded of a political cartoon which ran just after Bill Clinton was elected in 1992:
Just change "Clinton" to "Obama," and the image is just as true--probably more true now than in 1992.
If anyone has any memories of the day (or night), or pictures, or stories, or quotes, or anything, I'd so love to hear them.
I can't wait to read my other friends' blogs on The Day.
Election ’08: Blowout, Squeaker, or Upset?
Current mood: intense
I love election years. Pretty much every day, my first n' last thoughts of the day are about that odd mix of arithmetic n' geography called...
the Electoral College!
So, before the votin' happens tomorrow, I thought I'd put down some "handicapping" notes that I've been thinkin' about...
I'll group my thoughts around three scenarios: an Obama Blowout, a Squeaker, and a McCain Upset. I'll divide each part into "who sez (this'll happen)?" and "how will we know if/when it's happening?)
1) Obama Blowout
Who says this'll happen...? This, obviously, is pretty much what the prominent experts are predicting. Here, for instance, are the projections given by FiveThirtyEight-dot-com and RealClearPolitics-dot-com:
As y'alls can see, both are predicting an easy Obama win with around 340 electoral votes (you only need 270 to win).
This would be almost as big as Clinton's thumpings of Bush n' Dole. Clinton won with 370 electoral votes in 1992 & 379 in 1996. But, relative to the nail-biters we saw in 2000 and 2004, Obama clinching 340 electoral votes would certainly count as a thumpin'. (I borrow the phrase, "thumpin'" from Pres. Bush's own description of Republican losses in the '06 Congressional elections. )
How Will We Know If/When It's Happening? If McCain's in for a "thumpin," we'll know pretty early on election night. Indiana polls (mostly) close at 7:00PM. Virginia, North Carolina, Florida, and Ohio close by 8:00PM.
If a thumpin' is a-brewin', watch for the Networks to call these states pretty quick. The more of these states Obama wins, the bigger the thumpin' will be.
2) A Squeaker
Who says this will happen? I haven't seen anyone really support this position.
But I think there's a halfway reasonable chance for a squeaker to happen.
Under this view, Obama's strengths in the West (specifically: Iowa, Colorado, and New Mexico) will carry him over the 270 line. (Those three states, plus all the Kerry states, give Obama 273 electorals.) Then he'll win some extra gravy in Virginia. That would bring Obama to 286 electorals--which is the same level Bush won in 2004.
But I'm less certain than most pundits that Florida, Ohio, and North Carolina are "done deals" for the Democrats. For what it's worth, here's my own thinking about the electoral map:
By the way, if you wanna make a "projection map" of your very own, just head over to 270 To Win-dot-com... It's lotsa fun!
As you can see, I put Obama's "floor" at 286 electorals...with a "ceiling" of 333. (So I guess I see a chance at a thumpin', too, but only if Nevada, Florida, and North Carolina all fall into line.)
How Will We Know If/When This is Happening...? I actually looked up the minute-by-minute "timeline" of the 2004 presidential elections. (Linkie.) I'll be consulting it a lot tomorrow night.
So, what would this scenario look like? Well, if by 10:00PM the map looks deadlocked like this, then the night will prolly run long.
(If McCain then takes Florida and Virginia, I doubt we'll know 'til the ay-em.)
If the above happens, I think we'd need to wait for the West Coast to post their votes. Obama would still pull off the win--specifically, as I've said, owing to Iowa, Colorado, New Mexico, Nevada.
I just think it'll take us longer for McCain to concede.
If Obama wins this way, it would be like other squeakers--where we didn't learn the final result until the following morning. Nixon won 301 electoral votes against Humphrey in '68; Carter won 297 electorals against Ford in '76. In both cases, the loser didn't concede until the following morning.
3. McCain Upset
Who says this will happen? No sane person, lol. More exactly, I haven't seen any expert predict this with any confidence. At most, I saw one lifelong pollster say, "Well, hypothetically, here's how the polls could be systematically wrong."
In other words, while this option is mathematically possible, it seems very improbable. But I like math, so let's walk thru it...
This scenario starts with a hypothetical question: we're surprised to see so many peeps say they're still "undecided" over who to vote for. So...
What if "undecided" is just a code for "I'm voting for McCain, but would rather not say so"?
Statisticians have seen this before. In many elections, where the "cool candidate" is a Democrat, the polls tend to underestimate Republican votes. (In Britain, statisticians even have a name for this: it's called the "Shy Tory [Republican] Factor" Peeps are too shy to say they're not for the "cool, progressive candidate." Wimps! )
Another possibility (as Dautrich points out): We have to ask who is participating in these polls, and who might be avoiding pollsters. If McCain voters are more likely to avoid pollsters--becaue they're "shy"--then we have a skewed sample: the polls would then systematically underestimate McCain's actual support.
How Would We Know If/When This Is Happening? Well, like I said twice, I think this is really improbable. But if, for instance, McCain pulls off New Hampshire and Pennsylvania starts taking forever to fall in line...well, sumthin's up.
Here's another event which would be telling: Suppose the networks call (for example) Ohio for Obama quickly. Then a few hours pass, and the networks have to "take it back." (This, of course, happened twice with Florida in 2000.)
This would mean that the networks' exit polls had been unreliable. That would suggest that the "Shy Tory Factor" might be a bigger factor than pollsters and the media expected. And that would mean the election becomes "anyone's game."
So, that's my own handicapping. It's worth what you paid for it (nuthin', lol). But I thought you might find these three possible scenarios interesting to keep in mind when the polls close tomorrow.
Remember to vote, y'alls!
Currently
listening
:
For America
By
Jackson Browne
What if we changed that peanut-butter commercial?
Current mood: inquisitive
I'm sure y'alls have seen this commercial on TV:
Cuteness, lol.
The way "Mom" guarantees a fair outcome is simple:
Mom's Method 1: Jake gets to cut, but Cody gets the first choice between the slices.
This ay-em, I found myself wondering what we'd think if Mom had instead done things this way:
Mom's Method 2: Jake gets to cut, but we'll flip a coin to see who gets the first choice between the slices.
I'm curious about peeps' thoughts about two questions:
1) Is the second method just as fair, more fair, or less fair than the first method? And why?
2) Under the first method, Jake would try to cut the halves as equally as possible (obviously). Would you still try to cut the pieces equally under the second method? Why or why not?
3) What about the fairness of still another method, viz.:
Mom's Method 3: We flip a coin to see who gets to cut, and then flip a coin to see who gets to choose first.
Tim Trivia 2: Maybe my brain is odd :D
Current mood: amused
Category: Blogging
Well, I rather liked writing the blogs with "Tim Trivia" in them, so I thought I'd write up another one.
So I'm reading this book about left/right brain lateralization called Left Brain-Right Brain Differences, by James Iaccino. And I happen upon this strange fact about people with "inverted writing posture."
Pictures help. I use my right hand to write, but I hold the pencil in a weird "inverted" way...
For a long time, I just thought that was just an idiosyncrasy. But according to Iaccino, researchers have found an interesting fact about peeps who hold their pencils in the "inverted" style: according to Levy and Reid, who blazed the trail in this research in 1976:
"In subjects with a normal writing posture, the linguistically specialized hemisphere was contralateral to the dominant hand, and the visuospatially specialized hemisphere was ipsilateral; the reverse was true in subjects with an "inverted" hand position during writing."
In other words, my language centers are more likely to be on the same side as (= "ipsilateral to") the hand I use to write--i.e., on the right side, nestled with the emotional centers. Or, to put it even more simply, I might have a "Southpaw's brain structure."
In some ways this makes sense: My memories of what people say also includes the tone of voice they use to convey emotion with the words. And when I listen to peeps, I often find myself feeling whatever emotion they're projecting. I tend to be a sympathetic listener (or so I'm told). And whenever I write, I'm always weighing my words according to whether the word jibes with my exact emotion. (Example: I just weighed whether to use "precise" instead of "exact" in the previous sentence )
Yeah, I hear what you're thinking: "LOL, Tim's an EMO!"
In other ways, it's weird: But if I have a "Southpaw's Brain" it might also be expected that I'm more attracted to artistic endeavors and eschew activities which require large doses of narrow logic and rigid "sequential" thinking.
So, if you wanted to know a weird fact about me, that's one of them: I hold a pencil wrong, n' this might mean I have an Emo-wired brain...but I still love math!
But I admit: I still love those evil kittehs! =^^=
More randomness: my hermana pequena, Pikachu blogs a Random Friday blog every once in awhile. Today her question was: "IF I WAS RUNNING FOR PRESIDENT WHAT WOULD BE MY CAMPAIN SONG?"
My suggestion? A lost hit from the 80s: "Layin' it on the Line" by the Jefferson Starship.
And even MOAR randomness! My friend Nakena wanted to know: could a liberal and conservative fall in love? I think so, on account of one of my favorite movies, "First Monday in October."
Here's how I see a lefty and a rightie could fall in love. A little background to the video: Jill Clayburgh plays conservative judge Loomis. Walter Matthau plays liberal judge Snow.
Their argument is about whether a community in Nebraska has the legitimate right to ban a porn film called, "The Naked Nymphomaniac." (No, I'm NOT posting a clip of that film. This is a family-blog...besides, I checked: it's not on YouTube...)
Anyhoo, the producer of the film was a man named "Herbert Maloney."
So Rightie judge Loomis barges into Snow's office n' challenges Snow to try to defend Maloney's right to distribute the trashy film in Nebraska. Snow pretends to be Maloney "on the stand" while Loomis rakes him over the coals a la the Socratic Method.
You get the feeling from the scene that, even though they disagree, they both come away from the exchange with a grudging respect for one another's mental talents. (And as the movie unfolds, this actually happens.)
And where you have respect, there you can find love.
Happy Hangul Day!! (with bonus Lee Soo Young video =))
Current mood: happy
Today is Hangul Day! It's the special day in Korea when everybody celebrates the miracle that is the Korean written language, hangul.
I'm grateful to my friend, Kimchi, because she wrote a blog that reminded me. She also wrote all about the wonderful history of the Korean written language, and how King Se-jong helped to oversee its development. More history here.
For my part, I'll just add some videos...lazy me!
First, I thought I'd put up a good introduction to writing Korean. It looks difficult, but it's actually really easy! 10 minutes and a little practice, and you can read and write!
In fact, Korean was actually designed to be easy to learn! One reason it was invented was to make it easy for all Koreans to gain literacy.
And for my second video, I'm techinically cheating. Hangul Day is to celebrate written Korean. But I'm gonna put up a lovely Korean song (with subtitles) by my favorite singer, Soo Young Lee. Note: I did NOT do these subtitles.
One reason I admire Soo Young so much is because she has endured so much in life. Both of her parents died in car accidents when she was still a schoolgirl. But she somehow she overcame it all...and now converts pain into beauty--so many of her songs are about lost love. And she gives those songs such a mournful soul.
One of these days, when I'm less lazy (), I'll have to do some subtitles for her other songs...because I think her other songs are even better than this one.
Tim Trivia: My Ring-Tone In Korea ("You’re Within Me") :’)
Current mood: nostalgic
Category: Music
I don't have a cell-phone now. But when I lived in Korea, it was a necessity.
At first, my ring-tone was a generic ring.
But, one day, I was meeting with a couple of other foreigners--Robyn (from New Zealand) and Hyon-ae, a Korean-American from NYC.
Hyon-ae mentioned that there was this song that always broke her heart: Nae an-e keu-dae. It means "You're within me."
As she described the lyrics, I was moved, too. So I asked Hyon-ae to make that song my ring-tone.
She did.
Anyhoo, so I come back to America. A year or so ago, I look for this song.
No luck.
My problem: I didn't know the Korean spelling of the singer, Seo-Young Eun.
Then, one day, I found her! Yay!
So, if you follow this link, you can hear the song which was my ring-tone in Korea.
Oh, I know what you're wondering...What's so moving about the song's lyrics? Well, some good soul put a subtitled version (a cover sung by Lee Seung Gi) on YouTube.
And there's even cute little Korean characters, too.
So, here are the lyrics of my ring-tone song in English:
I hope y'alls find the song as sweet and touching as I do.
insubordinate
thoughtful
nervous
intense
)
inquisitive
amused
)
happy
But she 
nostalgic
