Saturday, November 29, 2003

Hey y'all, here's a new study of Texas talk which -- naturally -- corroborates what I told you way back when I started this blog: the correct spelling of "y'all" is "y'all" and not "ya'll". (They don't focus on the spelling, but they do spell it several times and make note of the origin, which, as I pointed out, leads inexorably to the correct spelling.)

As they used to say on the telly-phone recordings: "Please make a note of it." :-)
In case it wasn't obvious, my previous comment was sarcastic.

Now comes news that the Kenneth Trentadue death is being re-investigated. I first read about this ugly case back around 1998 or so. Any honest, objective observer can see there is something more to the story than a simple suicide. Like the Vince Foster death, this death and ensuing cover-up serves as a glaring example of what government -- including "our" government -- will do when it thinks it can get away with it. The surprise to me isn't the brutality of Trentadue's death (although that did come as a shock when I first heard about it; I've seen a lot since then that I hadn't previously), it's that the case is suddenly being reexamined after these handful of years, apparently due to political pressure from the Trentadue family and others. THIS IS VERY GOOD NEWS. It means that, in at least this one case, politicians will listen if we scream loudly enough.

Here's the story.

You're encouraged to research the case further; try here and here for starters. The second link contains pictures which should be viewed at your discretion.

Saturday, November 22, 2003

This is really fucking great.

(Note: read the link before you email me.)

Tuesday, November 18, 2003

On a slightly more serious note than the prior two entries, I've been contemplating security vs. liberty lately. A lot of words have been deployed in attempts to illuminate the lay of this conceptual land, with a large share of them issuing from such luminaries as James Madison and Ben Franklin, whose offerings I certainly commend to you. What occurs to me is that all humans desire both liberty and security; what differentiates us from one another is perhaps in where we look for security, and that may in turn affect our notions of liberty -- and certainly affects our realizations of it. What the Founding Fathers decried -- surrendering liberty for security -- was political, but there are other kinds of liberty and security. They (rightly) detested the idea of giving up liberty for political security, but what about, for example, giving up the liberty of being single for the security of one's own family? Is that a foolish exchange? A libertine might say yes, but I don't think so (and I think they would lose that argument if they tried to push the point). So I think there's a bit more to the subject than such pearls as Franklin's "They that can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety." Franklin was not wrong, the statement just isn't all-encompassing. I suspect he didn't mean it to be, but I haven't read the context. (Actually, come to think of it, Franklin was a bit of a libertine himself, wasn't he?)

That's about as far as my ponderings have gotten yet. I usually wouldn't make an entry on such a worthy subject without a fuller treatment of it, but I've been receiving complaints lately from an impatient reader (hi Mom). :-) Maybe you have something to say about this. Email me.

Saturday, November 08, 2003

What do you suppose dogs would do if they ever figured out that their masters are made out of meat?

Sunday, November 02, 2003

...So the dumb guy says to the smart guy, "If it's not my cheese, what's it doing on my Doritos?" Right about then, the smart guy begins to wonder which one of them really is the dumb one.