The Nappy Cat Chronicles

If you’re a web designer/programmer like I pretend to be and you also use Wordpress, you eventually discover that, though it’s an awesome weblog platform, Wordpress suffers from inconsistently and poorly constructed functions that may hinder the implementation of your design goals.

Two such functions involve category construction. My categories are listed horizontally almost midway down the “top of the fold” section. In order to achieve my desired design, I had to hack two Wordpress files. Here’s what I did:

Open wp-includes/category-template.php

On line 277 find

'echo' => 1, 'depth' => 0

and replace with

'echo' => 1, 'depth' => 0, 'before' => '<li>', 'after' => '</li>',
'link_before' => '', 'link_after' => ''

These additions to the wp_list_categories function will increase your design flexibility so that, when your style variable is set to 0 or none, you can specify what comes before and after the anchor element and what comes before and after the text that is contained within the anchor element.

Next, we have put those variable somewhere. Open wp-includes/classes.php

On lines 625 and 626 find

$link .= '>';
$link .= $cat_name . '</a>';

and replace with

if ( 'list' == $args['style'] )
$link .= '>' . $cat_name . '</a>';
else
$link .= '>' . $link_before . $cat_name . $link_after . '</a>';

On line 678 find

$output .= "$link<br />";

and replace with

$output .= $before . $link . $after;

So, to get this working, to one of your theme display files (such as header.php or sidebar.php) add

<?php
wp_list_categories('style=0&link_before=» &before=<p>&after=</p>&link_after= «');
?>

The code that is outputted is

<p><a href="/path_to/category">» Category «</a></p>

That’s it! Don’t be afraid to play around with it and add your own variables.

Christian Dominionism is the powerful political arm of Christianity. The end of abortion, gay marriage, and birth control and the regulation of personal behavior are among the goals Dominionism. Dominionism is not just another fundamental Christian lobby. Dominionists have enjoyed unparalleled and unprecedented access to the White House during Bush 43’s tenure.

The figureheads of the Dominionist movement are James C. Dobson of Focus on the Family and Tony Perkins of the Family Research Council.

James C. Dobson:

[James C.] Dobson is now America’s most influential evangelical leader, with a following reportedly greater than that of either Falwell or Robertson at his peak.

Dobson earned the title. He proselytized hard for Bush this last year, organizing huge stadium rallies and using his radio program to warn his 7 million American listeners that not to vote would be a sin. Dobson may have delivered Bush his victories in Ohio and Florida.

He’s already leveraging his new power. When a thank-you call came from the White House, Dobson issued the staffer a blunt warning that Bush “needs to be more aggressive” about pressing the religious right’s pro-life, anti-gay rights agenda, or it would “pay a price in four years.”

[In 2004], Dobson started a new offshoot of Focus on the Family called Focus on the Family Action, which he used to campaign openly for Bush. And during the campaign he joined Ralph Reed and…Charles Colson in regular conference calls with Karl Rove and other senior White House officials.

Crowley, M. (2004, November 12). James Dobson: The religious right’s new kingmaker. Slate. Retrieved December 12, 2006, from http://www.slate.com/id/2109621/

Focus on the Family:

Focus on the Family (FOTF or FotF), founded in 1977, is a Christian non-profit organization based in the United States. The organization describes itself as “dedicated to nurturing and defending families worldwide”. The group was founded by James Dobson and is headquartered in Colorado Springs, Colorado. Focus on the Family is one of a number of evangelical para-church organizations whose stated aim is not to start a new church or denomination, but to work interdenominationally to protect and promote their definitions of traditional family and family values. Some of the core promotional activities of the organization include a daily radio broadcast by Dobson and his colleagues, providing free counseling and resources for those facing family difficulties, and publishing a variety of magazines, videos and audio recordings.

Focus on the Family. (2006, December 11). In Wikipedia, The Free Encyclopedia. Retrieved December 13, 2006, from http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Focus_on_the_family

Tony Perkins:

From 1996 to 2004, Perkins was a member of the East Baton Rouge delegation to the Louisiana House of Representatives, where he served as a Republican. Republican Perkins ran for the United States Senate in the 2002 Louisiana jungle primary and received 10 percent of the vote. Perkins became the President of the conservative Christian Family Research Council, a political offshoot of James Dobson’s Focus on the Family in September 2003.

Tony Perkins (politician). (2006, December 10). In Wikipedia, The Free Encyclopedia. Retrieved December 13, 2006, from http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tony_Perkins_(evangelical_Christian_figure)

Family Research Council:

The Family Research Council (FRC) is the powerhouse of Christian influence in Washington. Founded in 1983 by Dr. James Dobson of Focus on the Family, the FRC is led by former Louisiana state representative Tony Perkins. The FRC reportedly has the ear of many members of Congress, the White House, and Christians nationwide. FRC is actively involved in educating religious leaders about moral issues being affected by decisions in Washington, and also in representing those leaders directly to the decision makers themselves. You will find them well represented on news channels and radio stations nationwide, and at meetings where key strategies are planned.

AgapePress (2006, April 13). 20 reasons there is hope for America. Retrieved December 13, 2006, from http://headlines.agapepress.org/archive/4/132006c.asp

This post has four sections:

1. Social Stigma
2. Child-Rearing
3. Marriage
4. Conclusion: In Defense Of Science

The first three sections will include related statements by Dominionists and rebuttals by respected psychological empiricists.

I. Social Stigma

The Claims:

We are all shocked by this spectacle of aberrant sexual behavior, but we shouldn’t be. This is the end result of a society that rejects sexual restraints in the name of diversity…Maybe it’s time to question: when is tolerance just an excuse for permissiveness?

Perkins, T. (2006, October 2). Family Research Council statement on Mark Foley. U.S. Newswire. Retrieved December 12, 2006, from http://releases.usnewswire.com/GetRelease.asp?id=73618

Tony Perkins, president of the conservative Family Research Council, issued a statement late Monday saying that although Democrats were exploiting the scandal, they “are right to criticize the slow response of Republican congressional leaders.” Perkins said neither party “seems likely to address the real issue, which is the link between homosexuality and child sexual abuse…ignoring this reality got the Catholic Church into trouble over abusive priests, and now it is doing the same to the House GOP leadership.”

Lochhead, C. (2006, October 3). Foley e-mail sex scandal hits the GOP hard. San Francisco Chronicle, p. A1. Retrieved December 12, 2006, from http://sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?file=/c/a/2006/10/03/MNGSULH7QH1.DTL

Homosexual apologists admit that some homosexuals sexually molest children, but they deny that homosexuals are more likely to commit such offenses. After all, they argue, the majority of child molestation cases are heterosexual in nature. While this is correct in terms of absolute numbers, this argument ignores the fact that homosexuals comprise only a very small percentage of the population. The evidence indicates that homosexual men molest boys at rates grossly disproportionate to the rates at which heterosexual men molest girls.

Daily, T. J. (n.d.) Homosexuality and child sexual abuse. Retrieved December 13, 2006, from http://www.frc.org/get.cfm?i=IS02E3

The Empirical Evidence:

In brief, the scientific sources cited by the FRC report don’t support their argument. Most of the studies they cited did not even assess the sexual orientation of abusers. Two of the studies explicitly concluded that sexual orientation and child molestation are unrelated.

Herek, G. M. (2006, October 7). Child abuse and Christian (Right) science. Beyond Homophobia. Retrieved December 13, 2006, from http://www.beyondhomophobia.com/blog/2006/10/07/child-abuse-research/

The empirical research does not show that gay or bisexual men are any more likely than heterosexual men to molest children. This is not to argue that homosexual and bisexual men never molest children. But there is no scientific basis for asserting that they are more likely than heterosexual men to do so. And, as explained above, many child molesters cannot be characterized as having an adult sexual orientation at all; they are fixated on children.

Herek, G. M. (n.d.) Facts about homosexuality and child molestation. Retrieved December 13, 2006, from http://psychology.ucdavis.edu/rainbow/html/facts_molestation.html

Are homosexual adults in general sexually attracted to children and are preadolescent children at greater risk of molestation from homosexual adults than from heterosexual adults? There is no reason to believe so. The research to date all points to there being no significant relationship between a homosexual lifestyle and child molestation. There appears to be practically no reportage of sexual molestation of girls by lesbian adults, and the adult male who sexually molests young boys is not likely to be homosexual.

Groth, A. N., & Gary, T. S. (1982). Heterosexuality, homosexuality, and pedophilia: Sexual offenses against children and adult sexual orientation. In A.M. Scacco (Ed.), Male rape: A casebook of sexual aggressions (pp. 143-152). New York: AMS Press.

II. Child-Rearing

The Claims:

Two Mommies Is One Too Many

Mary Cheney is starting a family. Let’s hope she doesn’t start a trend

In raising these issues, Focus on the Family does not desire to harm or insult women such as Cheney and Poe. Rather, our conviction is that birth and adoption are the purview of married heterosexual couples. Traditional marriage is God’s design for the family and is rooted in biblical truth. When that divine plan is implemented, children have the best opportunity to thrive. That’s why public policy as it relates to families must be based not solely on the desires of adults but rather on the needs of children and what is best for society at large.

Dobson, J. C. (2006, December 12). Two mommies is one too many. TIME Magazine, 168(25). Retrieved December 12, 2006, from http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,1568485-1,00.html

KING: Can a gay couple be a family?

DOBSON: Not in that sense, no. And I think that gay couples have difficulties trying to be a family in that sense.

KING: You would not allow them to adopt children?

DOBSON: Oh, I definitely would not.

KING: Would not because?

DOBSON: No, because there is so much research. I mean, there are hundreds, if not thousands, of articles and studies in the journals that show that children do best when you have a mother and a father providing role modeling for those kids and who are committed to each other.

King, L. (2002, March 7). Interview with Dr. James Dobson. Larry King Live. CNN. Transcript retrieved December 12, 2006, from http://transcripts.cnn.com/TRANSCRIPTS/0203/07/lkl.00.html

The Empirical Evidence:

There is no evidence to suggest that psychosocial development among children of gay men or lesbians is compromised in any respect relative to that among offspring of heterosexual parents. Despite longstanding legal presumptions against gay and lesbian parents in many states, despite dire predictions about their children based on well-known theories of psychosocial development, and despite the accumulation of a substantial body of research investigating these issues, not a single study has found children of gay or lesbian parents to be disadvantaged in any significant respect relative to children of’ heterosexual parents. Indeed, the evidence to date suggests that home environments provided by gay and lesbian parents are as likely as those provided by heterosexual parents to support and enable children’s psychosocial growth.

Patterson, C. J. (1992). Children of lesbian and gay parents. Child Development, 63, 1028-1042.

[T]here is suggestive evidence and good reason to believe that contemporary children and young adults with lesbian or gay parents do differ in modest and interesting ways from children with heterosexual parents. Most of the differences in the findings…cannot be considered deficits from any legitimate public policy perspective. They either favor the children with [lesbian and gay] parents, are secondary effects of social prejudice, or represent “just a difference” of the sort democratic societies should respect and protect.

Stacey, J., & Biblarz, T. J. (2001). (How) Does the sexual orientation of parents matter? American Sociological Review, 66(2), 159-183.

A Great Summation:

Numerous studies over the last three decades consistently demonstrate that children raised by gay or lesbian parents exhibit the same level of emotional, cognitive, social, and sexual functioning as children raised by heterosexual parents. This research indicates that optimal development for children is based not on the sexual orientation of the parents, but on stable attachments to committed and nurturing adults. The research also shows that children who have two parents, regardless of the parents’ sexual orientations, do better than children with only one parent.

American Psychiatric Association. (2002, November). Adoption and co-parenting of children by same-sex couples—Position statement. Retrieved December 12, 2006, from http://www.psych.org/edu/other_res/lib_archives/archives/200214.pdf

III. Marriage

First and foremost, the different types of partnerships need to be delineated.

Same-Sex Marriage:

At present, same-sex [civil] marriages are recognized in Belgium, Canada, the Netherlands, South Africa, Spain, and the U.S. state of Massachusetts (for same-sex marriages performed within that state under its laws). Israel’s High Court of Justice recently ruled to recognize same-sex marriages performed in other countries, although it is still illegal to perform them within the country.

Same-sex marriage. (2006, December 13). In Wikipedia, The Free Encyclopedia. Retrieved December 13, 2006, from http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Same-sex_marriage

Outside of Massachusetts, where same-sex marriage is legal, Vermont, California, and Connecticut are the only U.S. states to offer same-sex couples some or all of the state-level rights and benefits of marriage; the District of Columbia does as well. They do not use the word “marriage,” however, but call such unions “civil union” or “domestic partnership”.

Same-sex marriage in the United States. (2006, December 8). In Wikipedia, The Free Encyclopedia. Retrieved December 13, 2006, from http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Same-sex_marriage_in_the_United_States

Civil Union:

A civil union is a legal partnership agreement between two persons. Civil Unions were introduced in the UK and elsewhere to attempt to give legal rights to same-sex couples equal to those enjoyed by opposite-sex couples in marriage. Many people are critical of civil unions because they say it creates a separate status that’s unequal to marriage. Others are critical because they say it is introducing same-sex marriage by using a different name.

Civil union. (2006, December 12). In Wikipedia, The Free Encyclopedia. Retrieved December 13, 2006, from http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Civil_union

Common-Law Marriage:

Common-law marriage…is, historically, a form of interpersonal status in which a man and a woman are legally married. The term is often mistakenly understood to indicate an interpersonal relationship that is not recognized in law. In fact, a common law marriage is just as legally binding as a statutory or ceremonial marriage in most jurisdictions — it is just formed differently.

The essential distinctions of a common law marriage are:

1. Common law marriages are not licensed by government authorities.
2. Common law marriages are not necessarily solemnized.
3. There is no public record of a common law marriage (i.e., no marriage certificate).
4. Cohabitation alone does not amount to common law marriage; the couple in question must hold themselves out to the world to be husband and wife.

In some jurisdictions, a couple must have cohabited and held themselves out to the world as husband and wife for a minimum length of time for the marriage to be recognized as valid.

Common-law marriage. (2006, December 11). In Wikipedia, The Free Encyclopedia. Retrieved December 13, 2006, from http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Common-law_marriage

Domestic Partnership:

In the United States, domestic partnership is a state or employer-recognized status similar to marriage that may be available to same-sex couples and, sometimes, opposite-sex couples. Although similar to marriage, a state-recognized legal domestic partnership does not confer many of the 1,049 rights afforded to a civil marriage. Domestic partnerships in the United States are determined on a state-by-state basis, and sometimes on a city-by-city or county-by-county basis.

States with same-sex domestic partnership provisions include New York, California, Hawaii, Maine, and New Jersey, as well as the District of Columbia.

Domestic partnership in the United States. (2006, December 12). In Wikipedia, The Free Encyclopedia. Retrieved December 13, 2006, from http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Domestic_partnerships_in_the_United_States

The Effort to Define Marriage:

The Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA) does two things. First, it provides that no State shall be required to give effect to a law of any other State with respect to a same-sex “marriage.” Second, it defines the words “marriage” and “spouse” for purposes of Federal law.

DOMA is not meant to affect the definition of “spouse”…It ensures that whatever definition of “spouse” may be used in Federal law, the word refers only to a person of the opposite sex.

“Defense Of Marriage Act” 5/96 H.R. 3396 Summary/Analysis. (n.d.) Retrieved December 13, 2006, from the ‘Lectric Law Library’s stacks Web site: http://www.lectlaw.com/files/leg23.htm

[Originally proposed by Colorado republican Rep. Marilyn Musgrave in 2002] the Federal Marriage Amendment (FMA) [H.J. Res 56] is a proposed amendment to the United States Constitution which would define marriage in the United States as a union of one man and one woman. The FMA also would prevent judicial extension of marriage-like rights to same-sex couples or other unmarried persons. The most recent vote on the proposed amendment took place in the Senate on June 7, 2006. The amendment failed to pass; of the 60 votes required to [end the debate], 49 senators voted for putting the amendment to vote and 48 voted against.

Marriage in the United States of America shall consist only of the union of a man and a woman. Neither this constitution or the constitution of any state, nor state or federal law, shall be construed to require that marital status or the legal incidents thereof be conferred upon any union other than the union of a man and a woman.

The first sentence of the FMA would prevent any state from allowing same-sex marriage, even if the voters of that state amended the state’s constitution to require recognition of same-sex marriages. Ratification of the amendment would cause the dissolution of existing same-sex marriages currently recognized in Massachusetts.

The amendment was written by the Alliance for Marriage, an organization founded by Matt Daniels.

Federal Marriage Amendment. (2006, December 12). In Wikipedia, The Free Encyclopedia. Retrieved December 13, 2006, from http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Federal_Marriage_Amendment

The Claims:

Shared beliefs have created a broad alliance between the Catholic Leadership Conference and the Alliance for Marriage. In full support of the [Federal Marriage Amendment] written… the Catholic Leadership Conference (CLC) has joined AFM in endorsing the definition of marriage as between one man and one woman.

“These are momentous times: Soon the Senate will vote on S.J. 1 ‘[Federal Marriage Amendment].’ If we do not act now to protect marriage, our children and grandchildren will pay a terrible price.”

(Same-sex) marriage teaches that men and women don’t need each other, that children don’t need mothers and fathers and that marriage is primarily about affirming adults’ diverse intimacy needs rather than protecting children.”

Alliance For Marriage. (n.d.) Catholics move to prevent bigotry in marriage. Retrieved December 13, 2006, from http://www.allianceformarriage.org/site/News2?page=NewsArticle&id=5892

As the transient, promiscuous, and unfaithful relationships that are characteristic of homosexuals become part of society’s image of marriage, fewer marriages will be permanent, exclusive, and faithful–even among heterosexuals. So-called “conservative” advocates of same-sex civil marriage are optimistic that legal unions would change homosexuals for the better; it seems far more probable that homosexuals would change marriage for the worse.

Sprigg, P. (2004, March 29). Homosexuality: The threat to the family and the attack on marriage. Speech presented at the World Congress of Families III, Mexico City, MX. Retrieved December 13, 2006, from http://www.frc.org/get.cfm?i=PD04F01

The Empirical Evidence:

The data indicate that same-sex and heterosexual relationships do no differ in their essential psychosocial dimensions; that a parent’s sexual orientation is unrelated to her or his ability to provide a health and nurturing family environment; and that marriage bestows substantial psychological, social, and health benefits. It is concluded that same-sex couples and their children are likely to benefit in numerous ways from legal recognition of their families, and providing such recognition through marriage will bestow greater benefit than civil unions or domestic partnerships.

Herek, G. M. (2006). Legal recognition of same-sex relationships in the United States: A social science perspective. American Psychologist, 61(6), 607-621.

Research indicates that many gay men and lesbians want and have committed relationships. For example, survey data indicate that between 40% and 60% of gay men and between 45% and 80% of lesbians are currently involved in a romantic relationship. Further, data from the 2000 United States Census indicate that of the 5.5 million couples who were living together but not married, about 1 in 9 (594,391) had partners of the same sex.

Despite persuasive evidence that gay men and lesbians have committed relationships, three concerns about same-sex couples are often raised. A first concern is that the relationships of gay men and lesbians are dysfunctional and unhappy. To the contrary, studies that have compared partners from same-sex couples to partners from heterosexual couples on standardized measures of relationship quality (such as satisfaction and commitment) have found partners from same-sex and heterosexual couples to be equivalent to each other.

A second concern is that the relationships of gay men and lesbians are unstable. However, research indicates that, despite the somewhat hostile social climate within which same-sex relationships develop, many lesbians and gay men have formed durable relationships. For example, survey data indicate that between 18% and 28% of gay couples and between 8% and 21% of lesbian couples have lived together 10 or more years.

A third concern is that the processes that affect the well-being and permanence of the relationships of lesbian and gay persons are different from those that affect the relationships of heterosexual persons. In fact, research has found that the factors that predict relationship satisfaction, relationship commitment, and relationship stability are remarkably similar for both same-sex cohabiting couples and heterosexual married couples.

American Psychological Association. (2004, July). Resolution on sexual orientation and marriage. Retrieved December 12, 2006, from http://www.apa.org/pi/lgbc/policy/marriage.pdf

IV. Conclusion: In Defense Of Science

Conviction and dogma permeate socio-political and -religious debate. Every empirically validated hypothesis and theory is therefore reduced in status to an opinion only held by those with dogmatic bindings. To the Dominionist movement, evidence that positively correlates the thoughts, feelings, and behaviors of hetero and homosexuals is, in its judgment, merely a misguided estimation. In regards to sexuality, science tells us that attraction is a biologically-based phenomenon. Whether we are pedophilic, heterosexual, homosexual, or bisexual, our preference is hardwired and extremely resistant to intervention. Unfortunately, the Dominionist movement rejects this and paints a picture of attraction that is based solely on the notion that variation outside of the opposing-sex dynamics experienced and shared by “normal” adults is disorderly and an “unnecessary evil.” However, as deft as the Dominionist movement is at exploiting the fear that surrounds this “unnecessary evil,” science holds the trump card: mathematics. It seems to be a dirty little secret that science progresses solely on the basis of numerical significance and duplicability. For instance, older males are significantly more at risk to attempt suicide than all other age and gender cohorts. This phenomenon has been so numerically verified that it is accepted as fact. This same standard is applied to sexuality by rational individuals. The statistical analyses conducted by social scientists do not suddenly become less valid when an individual believes that his or her deity disagrees.

A professor once told me, and I agree, that science is the pursuit of god. Our goal is to understand and explain 100% of our universe through our limited human framework. If we are to perceive god as everything, then, logically, we are discovering god bit by bit. Scientific theory may be able to account for, say, 10% of our experience. A theory such as E=MC^2 may increase our understanding to 12%. A subsequent theory may rock the boat and reduce our understanding to 8%. Certainly, science is fluidic and uncertain and it cannot be rendered into dogma. Nor can it be dismissed as opinion. It, as our current “best guess,” is somewhere in between. My belief is that a majority of people neither like nor value uncertainty. Holy books are fraught with moral directives and imperatives. They offer unyielding certainty and have been constructed to explain the sum of one’s experiences if one’s thoughts, feelings, and behaviors are maintained within the recommended framework. This framework is considered “good” while all competing frameworks are considered “evil.” The verbiage employed by this binary outlook fosters fear and misunderstanding. Evil must be withstood because inherent to the term is the belief that evil is supernaturally deceptive and seductive. Realistically, we are all more similar than dissimilar. Diversity is therefore an educational yet unnecessary pretense that can be deconstructed through the empirical discovery that is accomplished by science and congenial communion that is accomplished by religion.

Though it is not yet Sunday, this is just too good to wait. Tony Zirkle is a Republican running for Congress. Tony Zirkle fixates on religion, pornography, and Jewish people. Tony Zirkle gives a speech to about 60 neo-Nazis and white supremacists on Hitler’s birthday, April 20th:

Tony Zirkle defends himself on his campaign message board:

Socialists deserve to hear the Gospel and some of them might need it more than the average person. I took it as an opportunity to hand out an entire box of books on the life of Christ. Additionally, WWII may never have happened had we not neglected pornography and prostitution in the Jewish community. Hitler would not have had his most powerful argument when he claimed that Jews cartelled [sic] 97% of all international prostitution. Let’s not repeat history.

Tony Zirkle is long winded:

Jewish porn paints German porn as being into bondage and S&M which is just sick. If we’d stop defaming Germans for what happened generations ago, maybe they’d have better self-esteem.

I don’t think 99% of Jews are ashamed of Jews in porn space when the victims are very often white, Christian women with Christian crosses hanging around their necks. Where do you think the “Money Shot” comes from? Intentional degradation of white women right in the face.

If Jews weren’t wasting their brilliant intelligence in porn and frivolous entertainment, we’d have 200 miles per gallon vehicles and many other technological developments. Jews, as the most intelligent race in my experience (I’ve dated more Jewesses than any other category), are wasting their God-given gifts and not blessing the world as they should. Polio was appreciated. I’m not sure about Freud’s psychology, Marx’s communism or Einstein’s nuclear bomb assistance.

Jews brag about getting porn started in this nation. Now any punk with a camera can get into it. See the Jewish Quarterly article I quoted. Jewish men were the bulk of the original porn stars in the early decades. The argument was that Jewish men, with super self-confidence with the really delusional idea that they are the “chosen ones” even if they commit porn-adultery, could perform on camera. Male porn stars are now more likely to be black. We have exchanged the slave economic auction block for the porn mule one and, if you believe that one should not fear the one who can harm the body but should fear the one who can throw both body and soul into Gehenna, then the latter state of black men may be worse if that’s even possible.

[Tony Zirkle continues rambling for 300+ more words.]

I added emphasis to the “Jewesses” line because I find the “It’s okay because I have friends/fucked girls who are ______” defense funny. For more hilarity, check out Tony Zirkle’s campaign site and always keep an eye out for the great porn dragon and stay away from divorce aids.

(Really, check it out. This dude is fucking nuts.)

McNEIL-PPC, Inc. for their Zyrtec-D packaging:

Yes, 24 individually wrapped nasal decongestant tablets. The lot of wasted plastic might be redeemable if the packaging wasn’t ridiculously child and old-person proof. The packaging works well if you’re carrying one in your pocket. Unfortunately, the packaging is more annoying than those sticky things on DVD holders and will work against you if you would like to, say, remove the tablet.

Looking through my image files, I’ve found that I have an inordinate amount of wallpaper files. My wallpaper hasn’t changed since 2006, so I’m going through and hitting the delete key for most of them. In the mean time, here are some of the cooler scenic wallpapers I’ve collected followed by links to websites with very cool downloadable wallpapers.

Wallpapers for 1024×768 resolution monitors:

Wallpapers for 1280×1024 resolution monitors:

Link to Digital Blasphemy 3d Wallpaper
Link to Pixelgirl Presents Desktop Images
Link to MacDesktops
Link to Caedes Desktop Backgrounds
Link to InterfaceLIFT: High-Resolution Widescreen Wallpaper
Link to Socksoff Wallpaper Links Resource
Link to Twisted Sun Desktop Classics

Back in October 2004, my snarky take on politics led me to design a cover for a nonexistent (yet completely relevant) magazine called The Blinded Conservative. I think I may have used the Microsoft Paint program, so it’s pretty bad but it’s too funny to hold back:

“If Hillary Clinton takes this by 10 or more percentage points, I’m done paying attention to this nomination process,” I told myself before the Pennsylvania primary. She took it by 10 and I plan to keep my promise to myself.

It’s not that I am a Obama shill though I find him charismatic. It’s that I find Clinton to be insufferable. We’ve had 8 years of the Bush dauphin–a mentally simple man whose followers believed that he deserved to be president twice. Clinton and her followers share the same delusion.

When he first became the national favorite, Clinton tried running to the left of Obama. But, when no one was fooled into believing that she is as politically left as Obama, she came at him as a Republican and has proceeded to divide the registered Democrats and bully her way into a brokered convention.

The rest of the election might go like this. Clinton will continue to drag Obama through the mud. Obama, fearing a split in the Democratic party that will prevent him from winning in November, will drop out of the race “for the good of the party.” Clinton will proceed to run to the left of McCain and advertise her motherly and feminine sides. She will then lose to McCain in the general election by losing Ohio, Florida, and Pennsylvania and losing the popular vote by 1 percentage point.

Of course, that’s my nightmare scenario. Perhaps Obama’s delegate lead will count for something at the convention, but I don’t hold my breath. The status quo loving products of incest and nepotism who reside in Washington D.C. part-time have never needed your consent.

Can this end yet?

Instead of working, my friend Monet’s Lilacs and I came up with a list of the top 10 things she hates and the top 10 things she loves. She’s awesome so I’m posting the lists here as her in their full and unedited glory. — Will

The Top 10 Things I Hate!

1. Uneducated People
2. Educated people who don’t value education
3. People who are proud they don’t read books
4. Fake tits
5. Reality TV
6. Celebrity worship
7. Organized religion
8. Pro-life bumper stickers
9. People who thinks sports and video games are important
10. 

The Top 10 Things I Love <3

1. Monet’s Water Lillies
2. Springtime
3. Chocolate
4. Tea and Coffee
5. Pastry and Pasta
6. Old-fashioned Porches
7. Quiet Time
8. People who treat others with respect
9. Liberals
10. NPR

My last cigarette was smoked on November 14th. I was taking Chantix at the time and, although my experience with Chantix wasn’t fucked up like this guy’s experience, when my dosage increased to 1 milligram twice a day, I experienced plenty of insomnia, vivid dreams, and stomach pains. My PM dose of Chantix felt like it burned a hole in my stomach every night.

I began to dread taking the Chantix. Two weeks after the 14th marked a month on the Chantix and a fortnight free of cigarettes. Like all smokers, I had “quit” numerous times in the past and I knew how bad the withdrawal symptoms could get. Chantix helped take the edge off. It made me apathetic towards smoking. But, I felt that the side effects likely outweighed the withdrawal symptoms at that point.

So, at the end of November, I stopped the Chantix. Within a week or so, the cravings hit. If you’ve never had the pleasure, cravings are full body. Even your lungs demand nicotine. It took until sometime in January for the cravings to fully subside. By that time, the tightness in my chest had dissipated and my abilities to taste and smell had returned. After spending time around the coworkers formerly known as my fellow smokers, I realized the extent to which I smelled tremendously awful and I apologized to a few of my nonsmoking friends.

Sometime around the end of February I overcame my mental addiction. This means that I honestly believe that I’ll never smoke again. Until I overcame the mental aspect of my nicotine addiction, I could only speculate.

For the most part during my quitting smoking experience, I was relaxed. In the past I had claimed slavery to my addiction. “I don’t smoke cigarettes, cigarettes smoke me,” I thought amidst agitation and mental confusion. This mentality was, in all honesty, a subconscious effort on my part to sabotage my attempt at quitting. And it worked repeatedly.

This and past quitting experiences have created in my mind a conceptualization of addiction that’s shaped like a disk. When you stop using, you cut out the middle. The ring shaped remnant is composed of every excuse to start using again. Excuses vary but among what I’ve heard and used myself are “It’s just not my time,” “I’ll do it later,” “I enjoy it too much to quit,” and “I’ll quit when I move and make friends who don’t smoke.”

Unless you deal honestly with the excuses, they’ll continuously push inward until the disk is whole and you’re using again. In other words, you have to want to quit regardless of your circumstances. No amount of Chantix and Commit can compensate for personal agency.

So, I’ve been smoke free for five months. It feels like a great weight has been lifted and an anchor cut. I can’t relive all my years of poor health habits but I can forge ahead now with a sense of freedom. You know, it’s funny. As a teenager I measured my passing into adulthood by that which, at certain ages, availed themselves to me. But now as an adult I understand that adulthood cannot be imposed by the larger society. It’s about what we choose to do and choose not to do. It’s about valuing our personal agency and taking responsibility.

Video game poll results from What They Play (via Ars Techina):

These results make me wonder, would these parents find a digital version of violent ocular penetration of a graphically severed human head more or less offense than a digital version of a man and woman having sex? Also, two men kissing is just as offensive as a beheading? C’mon.

You go into these small towns in Pennsylvania and, like a lot of small towns in the Midwest, the jobs have been gone now for 25 years and nothing’s replaced them. And they fell through the Clinton administration, and the Bush administration, and each successive administration has said that somehow these communities are gonna regenerate and they have not.

And it’s not surprising then they get bitter, they cling to guns or religion or antipathy toward people who aren’t like them or anti-immigrant sentiment or anti-trade sentiment as a way to explain their frustrations.

Quick quiz: Is this man “clinging to” his religion or is he expressing his faith? Is he exhibiting “antipathy toward” those who aren’t like himself or is he simply indicating his unhappiness with how other people conduct their business?

I see a man who is clinging to his religion and expressing antipathy toward everyone and everything not like himself. This is the type of individual about which Obama was referring. This type of individual may make public declarations of hate. Usually though, this type of individual hates privately. He hates liberals and clings to a gun collection to stick it to the Democrats. He hates Mexicanos and clings to his belief that they are bringing down the White middle class. He hates everyone not like himself and clings to a religion to justify his hate.

Unfortunately, the media’s unquestioning coverage of this sort of thing should make a sane politico want to punch himself in the face rather than point this out. Anyone with an ax to grind will jump on this and claim that the quote was made in reference to each and every one of their small-town constituents. Already, Hillary has stated that rural folk are the greatest folk on the planet. The McCain campaign has referred to it as breathtaking “elitism and condescension.”

Since the only way to turn the quote against Obama is to claim that he was referring to all small-town blue-collar White Americans, there is a tacit admission that fundamentalists and wacko gun-hoarders are viewed as representative of the larger social orders of Christians and Second Amendment enthusiasts. Though I do find this sort of admission hilarious, I wish Republicans and opportunistic Democrats would refrain from clouding the issue with buzzwords like “elitism” when the discussion isn’t framed in a way that kisses the collective asses of their constituents.

The best Iraq-related ad I’ve seen this year:

William Todd Schultz on diagnostication:

Let me begin by saying this: No, I don’t believe every artistic genius is mad. Nor do I believe that every mad person is secretly (or not-so-secretly) artistic. Both are statistical outliers, the two do intersect occasionally in enormously interesting ways that I plan to talk about a lot, but they are not one and the same. There is no essential connection. A tendency that does seem to be increasing in frequency, however, and it’s a tendency I generally deplore, is the diagnosing of artists as a means of explaining their art. The process usually goes something like this: Sylvia Plath was consumed by the idea of killing herself, she was emotionally erratic, her moods were labile, she was occasionally full of rage, her interpersonal dynamics were complex, so she must have suffered from borderline personality disorder. “Shazam,” the interpreter declares, popping the champagne cork. “I have explained Sylvia Plath.”

But a diagnosis is not an explanation. It is merely a description, a name for a set of thoughts, feelings, and behaviors, not a real answer. What we want to know is how someone became who she is, not what her DSM-derived “disease” might be. I talk a lot about this subject in chapter one of my Handbook of Psychobiography. You can check that out for more detail.
  Here’s a little illustration I use in my psychobiography courses. Say a mother tells a psychiatrist, “My son hears voices. Why?” The psychiatrist answers, “Well, sorry to say this, but it’s because he’s a schizophrenic.” Mom replies: “Oh. Well, how do you know he’s a schizophrenic?” Psychiatrist says, “Because he hears voices.” See how, in fact, we get nowhere?

In this post, Schultz promotes his field of study, psychobiography. But he purposefully does so at the expense of psychological diagnostication. Other academics have done this and I find it maddening.

What’s their beef? Criticism of diagnostication usually falls into one of three categories. First, making a diagnosis is incomplete in terms of treatment. Second, having a diagnosis incurs social stigma. And, finally, particular diagnoses include too many or not enough symptoms.

Now, it is true that treatment of a psychological condition should always be more than diagnosis and prescription. You have to be low on the brain scale to think otherwise. Furthermore, the researchers who study the symptom clusters are the ones who should decide what symptoms are included and excluded and they should not be criticized for what are predominantly media-fueled hysterics.

Here’s what the critics fail to understand:  Diagnostication is a way for care providers to succinctly share patient information and is the most adequate method to dictate treatment. It is not a sacred ritual and a diagnosis is never carved into stone. It is simply asinine for Schultz to assert that anyone with half the intelligence needed to graduate graduate school believes that, after a diagnosis is made, additionaly understanding of a patient magically becomes unnecessary.