Sunday, September 22, 2002
i took my first IQ test today at http://www.emode.com/tests/uiq/
and this is what the results said...
Congratulations, justin!
Your IQ score is 135
This number is the result of a formula based on how many questions you answered correctly on Emode's Ultimate IQ test.
The even better news is that at Emode, we've taken your IQ test one step further. During the test, you answered four different types of questions — mathematical, visual-spatial, linguistic and logical. We were able to analyze how you did on each set of those questions, which allows us to shed light on the way your brain uniquely functions.
At the same time, we compared your answers with others who have taken the test, and according to the sorts of questions you got correct, we can tell your Intellectual Type is a Visionary Philosopher.
The first thing we can tell you about that is you're equally good at mathematical and verbal tasks, and learn best through experience. But that's just scratching the surface.
well i wasn't gonna pay for the rest of it... but i guess its interesting. Some of the questions are hard.. what was your score ??
Thursday, September 12, 2002
A year ago today a very bad thing happened and a lot of people died that should not have. it was a horrible thing and I do feel for the families of everyone who lost a loved one that day.
OK. Now that I said that…I think that everyone who pauses to remember the events of a year ago and every newspaper, tv, and radio station that devotes time to what happened a year ago is only working on behalf of the cause of the terrorists. I am not saying that they are a willing and cooperative member. Far from it. But everytime we change our lives. Alter our patterns of livng. Even change our regular viewing habits on tv the terrorists have won another battle.
The strongest thing we can do to defeat the terrorists…any terrorist, is not to acknowledge their actions. Not to devote hundreds of hours of tv time to them and their cause.
When we devote hours on tv to the terrorists groups, leaders, causes and beliefs. Then the terrorists have won.
When we create a department of homeland defense which will suck billions of federal dollars from other worthwile programs of our government in order to protect ourselves from terrorists threats, then the terrorists have won.
When we pass laws that change the fundamental principles of our legal system and allow the current government administration to ignore basic constitutional provisions under which our country operates, then the terrorists have won.
When we turn our country from one of millions of citizens living at peace in their communities into a country where neighbors spy upon neighbors for signs of being an “evil doer”, then the terrorists have won.
When people are afraid to speak out their true feelings because their views may be unpopular or not agreement with those in power in our country, When people are forced form elective office or their television programs are forced off the air for supporting such views, then the terrorists have won.
“A man who trades freedom for security has neither” – President James Madison, primary Arthor or the US Constitution
“Patriotism, is no the blind acceptance of the status quo, but the ability to call your country to a higher order” -- US Senator George McGovern
Our country was created by its founders as a unique experiment in the history of the world. The main governing document of our country states not what the people are allowed to do, but what the government is and is not allowed to do. It does not restrict the actions of the people within its boarders, instead it restricts the actions of the government within its boarders. The people have all the freedom.
In our country our citizens have been endowed with rights not enjoyed by citizens in other countries.
The right to freedom of speech.
The right to freedom of the press.
The right to freedom of association.
The right to a trail by a jury of your peers.
The right to consult with an attorney, and be represented by one at trial.
The right to refrain from self incrimination.
The right to a quick and fair trial.
The right face your accusers at trail.
The right to be innocent until proven guilty at trial.
The right of privacy and resistrictions on unreasonable search and seizure by the government.
Unlike many countries, ours was designed not primarily to see that people who commit crimes go to jail, but it was designed to see that no innocent people go to jail for crimes they do not commit. Because of that, it sometimes means that guilty people do go free. But historically, the important principle in our country was that innocent people do not go to jail.
To change these historical rights, even if it would make it easier for our government to capture suspected terrorists is the wrong thing to do. To allow the government to say that the rights that our citizens enjoy, that belong to us infringe on their ability to fight terrorism and that our citizens need to give up these rights to feel more secure is the wrong thing to do. If we do, then it means the terrorists have won.
OK. Now that I said that…I think that everyone who pauses to remember the events of a year ago and every newspaper, tv, and radio station that devotes time to what happened a year ago is only working on behalf of the cause of the terrorists. I am not saying that they are a willing and cooperative member. Far from it. But everytime we change our lives. Alter our patterns of livng. Even change our regular viewing habits on tv the terrorists have won another battle.
The strongest thing we can do to defeat the terrorists…any terrorist, is not to acknowledge their actions. Not to devote hundreds of hours of tv time to them and their cause.
When we devote hours on tv to the terrorists groups, leaders, causes and beliefs. Then the terrorists have won.
When we create a department of homeland defense which will suck billions of federal dollars from other worthwile programs of our government in order to protect ourselves from terrorists threats, then the terrorists have won.
When we pass laws that change the fundamental principles of our legal system and allow the current government administration to ignore basic constitutional provisions under which our country operates, then the terrorists have won.
When we turn our country from one of millions of citizens living at peace in their communities into a country where neighbors spy upon neighbors for signs of being an “evil doer”, then the terrorists have won.
When people are afraid to speak out their true feelings because their views may be unpopular or not agreement with those in power in our country, When people are forced form elective office or their television programs are forced off the air for supporting such views, then the terrorists have won.
“A man who trades freedom for security has neither” – President James Madison, primary Arthor or the US Constitution
“Patriotism, is no the blind acceptance of the status quo, but the ability to call your country to a higher order” -- US Senator George McGovern
Our country was created by its founders as a unique experiment in the history of the world. The main governing document of our country states not what the people are allowed to do, but what the government is and is not allowed to do. It does not restrict the actions of the people within its boarders, instead it restricts the actions of the government within its boarders. The people have all the freedom.
In our country our citizens have been endowed with rights not enjoyed by citizens in other countries.
The right to freedom of speech.
The right to freedom of the press.
The right to freedom of association.
The right to a trail by a jury of your peers.
The right to consult with an attorney, and be represented by one at trial.
The right to refrain from self incrimination.
The right to a quick and fair trial.
The right face your accusers at trail.
The right to be innocent until proven guilty at trial.
The right of privacy and resistrictions on unreasonable search and seizure by the government.
Unlike many countries, ours was designed not primarily to see that people who commit crimes go to jail, but it was designed to see that no innocent people go to jail for crimes they do not commit. Because of that, it sometimes means that guilty people do go free. But historically, the important principle in our country was that innocent people do not go to jail.
To change these historical rights, even if it would make it easier for our government to capture suspected terrorists is the wrong thing to do. To allow the government to say that the rights that our citizens enjoy, that belong to us infringe on their ability to fight terrorism and that our citizens need to give up these rights to feel more secure is the wrong thing to do. If we do, then it means the terrorists have won.
Monday, September 09, 2002
Sunday, September 01, 2002
“All the news that’s fit to print” --- that is the motto of The New York Times, supposedly THE newspaper with a liberal leaning in our country. Recently it was announced that this bastion of liberal thought would BEGIN to allow notices of same sex weddings to appear in its pages next to those of more “traditional” couples.
Did anyone realize that they previously had a policy against publishing such announcements ?? That such items were “unfit” to include in their most respected journal ?
That’s very enlightened of them to change this policy, but it’s hardly cutting edge and enlightened. When I read about the announcement in the USAToday, I was more shocked that they were just starting doing it rather than that they were going to start doing it.
New York City has one of the largest concentrations of gay people in the nation, it’s not as if this was the ultra conservative Orange County Register or a small town paper in the middle of the heartland.
Daily, gay people openly appear on mainstream television in as characters (will and grace, dawson’s creek, undressed) as the performers (Rosie O’Donnell, randy Harrison) or as just themselves ( the real world, survivor) on many of the countries most popular television shows. Will and grace won an Emmy for best comedy show. Dawson’s Creek, Queer as Folk, and Survivor all draw top ratings for their respective networks. Rosie O’Donnell won 5 Emmys as Best Talk Show and 5 Emmys as best Talk Show Host in her show’s 6 years on television. The Real World is MTV’s longest running show (this year will be it’s 12th season) and this past year drew more viewers than ever before.
These are not the times of Oscar Wilde and “the love that dare not speak it’s name.” In fact, in the same edition of the USAToday as the times’ announcement was an article reporting that Germany had become yet another European country to recognize the legal standing of a same-sex marriage as equal to that of a “traditional” marriage.
The difference was striking. On one hand we have a country (Germany) that is truly moving forward with equality and rights for all people, and on the other we have a country (the US) where the self-proclaimed “paper of national record” plays catch up by recognizing what its readers have for years and what our government won’t.
It seems to me as if the Times is playing catch up with the times.
It is hardly surprising given the Times horrible track history in the last 25 years. In the historical accounts of the early days of the AIDS crisis, stories describing “gay cancer” outbreaks in the nations largest cities along with the wasting diseases breaking out across central Africa were buried deep within the Times allowing then President Reagan and other powerful people to look the other way. A front page New York Times story is often re-reported in papers and on television and radio stations across the country and around the world and has the power to shape national and international debate as the story about our government’s plans for invading Iraq did this summer.
Throughout the 80’s the Times refused to use the words “lover”, “partner”, or other terms of affection to describe the loved ones of the countess AIDS victims whose obituaries appeared in their pages. The Times added to the pain at the time of grieving my insisting to usea sanitary “longtime companion” description, no matte what the preference was of the people involved. A standard that was not maintained in the obituaries of unmarried heterosexual couples.
Of course, the Times has not dealt well with non-traditional issues and has rarely been at the forefront of national change, even in heterosexual issues.
In 1984 a housewife, mother, and member of the US House of Representatives from Queens, New York became the first woman to run on a major parties ballot for national office. The named she preferred was Geraldine Ferraro. Ferraro however was her maiden name – which she used professionally to honor her mother who worked so hard to put her daughter through law school. She was married to John Zaccaro, a successful Queens businessman.
While most newspapers refered to the people in their articles simply by last name, the Times insisted that all people referred to by name would carry a title. Other than the ones like Rev. or Dr. the only ones the times recognized were Mr., Mrs,. And Miss.
Once Representative Ferraro resigned from her office to seek the Vice-Presidency, the Times ran into quite a problem on the issue of how to refer to her in their paper. They could not refer to her as Miss Ferraro for she was a married woman. She could not be referred to as Mrs. Ferraro, for she was not married to Mr. Ferraro, she was married to Mr. Zaccaro. (Mrs. Ferraro was in fact, her mother.) The Times policy would have insisted that she be referred to as Mrs Zaccaro, eventhough it was a name she did not use professionally and if the Times did so, it would cause readers great confusion. Only because of this conumdrum, the times reluctantly adopted the use of the (at the time) controversial but very handy title of Ms.
While the times may advocate liberal and modern policies for our country, they seem to hold on to very conservative and antiquated policies when it comes to their own policies and procedures.
It seems, once again the Times is far behind the times.
Did anyone realize that they previously had a policy against publishing such announcements ?? That such items were “unfit” to include in their most respected journal ?
That’s very enlightened of them to change this policy, but it’s hardly cutting edge and enlightened. When I read about the announcement in the USAToday, I was more shocked that they were just starting doing it rather than that they were going to start doing it.
New York City has one of the largest concentrations of gay people in the nation, it’s not as if this was the ultra conservative Orange County Register or a small town paper in the middle of the heartland.
Daily, gay people openly appear on mainstream television in as characters (will and grace, dawson’s creek, undressed) as the performers (Rosie O’Donnell, randy Harrison) or as just themselves ( the real world, survivor) on many of the countries most popular television shows. Will and grace won an Emmy for best comedy show. Dawson’s Creek, Queer as Folk, and Survivor all draw top ratings for their respective networks. Rosie O’Donnell won 5 Emmys as Best Talk Show and 5 Emmys as best Talk Show Host in her show’s 6 years on television. The Real World is MTV’s longest running show (this year will be it’s 12th season) and this past year drew more viewers than ever before.
These are not the times of Oscar Wilde and “the love that dare not speak it’s name.” In fact, in the same edition of the USAToday as the times’ announcement was an article reporting that Germany had become yet another European country to recognize the legal standing of a same-sex marriage as equal to that of a “traditional” marriage.
The difference was striking. On one hand we have a country (Germany) that is truly moving forward with equality and rights for all people, and on the other we have a country (the US) where the self-proclaimed “paper of national record” plays catch up by recognizing what its readers have for years and what our government won’t.
It seems to me as if the Times is playing catch up with the times.
It is hardly surprising given the Times horrible track history in the last 25 years. In the historical accounts of the early days of the AIDS crisis, stories describing “gay cancer” outbreaks in the nations largest cities along with the wasting diseases breaking out across central Africa were buried deep within the Times allowing then President Reagan and other powerful people to look the other way. A front page New York Times story is often re-reported in papers and on television and radio stations across the country and around the world and has the power to shape national and international debate as the story about our government’s plans for invading Iraq did this summer.
Throughout the 80’s the Times refused to use the words “lover”, “partner”, or other terms of affection to describe the loved ones of the countess AIDS victims whose obituaries appeared in their pages. The Times added to the pain at the time of grieving my insisting to usea sanitary “longtime companion” description, no matte what the preference was of the people involved. A standard that was not maintained in the obituaries of unmarried heterosexual couples.
Of course, the Times has not dealt well with non-traditional issues and has rarely been at the forefront of national change, even in heterosexual issues.
In 1984 a housewife, mother, and member of the US House of Representatives from Queens, New York became the first woman to run on a major parties ballot for national office. The named she preferred was Geraldine Ferraro. Ferraro however was her maiden name – which she used professionally to honor her mother who worked so hard to put her daughter through law school. She was married to John Zaccaro, a successful Queens businessman.
While most newspapers refered to the people in their articles simply by last name, the Times insisted that all people referred to by name would carry a title. Other than the ones like Rev. or Dr. the only ones the times recognized were Mr., Mrs,. And Miss.
Once Representative Ferraro resigned from her office to seek the Vice-Presidency, the Times ran into quite a problem on the issue of how to refer to her in their paper. They could not refer to her as Miss Ferraro for she was a married woman. She could not be referred to as Mrs. Ferraro, for she was not married to Mr. Ferraro, she was married to Mr. Zaccaro. (Mrs. Ferraro was in fact, her mother.) The Times policy would have insisted that she be referred to as Mrs Zaccaro, eventhough it was a name she did not use professionally and if the Times did so, it would cause readers great confusion. Only because of this conumdrum, the times reluctantly adopted the use of the (at the time) controversial but very handy title of Ms.
While the times may advocate liberal and modern policies for our country, they seem to hold on to very conservative and antiquated policies when it comes to their own policies and procedures.
It seems, once again the Times is far behind the times.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)