Zee v. Zed

Sep. 30th, 2012 08:11 pm
rhia_starsong: (Default)
This has been bugging me for a while.  In SGA, everyone makes sure to put 'Zed' for ZPM when McKay talks, which is fine since it's canon.  But what about Beckett?  The only reason some Canadians say 'Zed' when Americans say 'Zee' is because the British pronounce the letter that way.  So it would make much more sense even than Rodney saying 'Zed' for Carson to say it that way.  Which makes me wonder why no-one does that in fic, let alone why it apparently never made it into the show.

The other thing that bothers me is people who are not Mark Twain writing characters dialectically through the whole story.  Just grates on my last nerve.
rhia_starsong: (Default)
This is the sort of thing that needs to be said more often as we come to election time here in America:

The more everyone finds out about Mitt Romney's finances, the more questions they have. Perhaps that's why he's hiding as much as he thinks he can get away with.

Today, The Boston Globe reported that Romney was still running Bain Capital two years after he claims he left the firm, directly contradicting his campaign's denial that he was involved in deals that led to layoffs, bankruptcies, and American jobs getting shipped overseas.

It's a pattern of secrecy, and this is just the latest example of him trying to hide the truth from voters. There are a number of issues in play right now -- questions to which voters deserve answers:

1) Why won't Romney come clean about his taxes? He seems intent on being the first presidential nominee in over 30 years to keep his financial records hidden from the American people. Earlier this year, Governor Romney hedged when asked if he'd follow the precedent set by his own father, George Romney, and release multiple years of tax returns. After pressure from fellow Republicans, Romney released one year -- 2010 -- which raised many more questions that full disclosure would answer. Here's why that matters: Presidents make important decisions for this country, and Americans ought to know the motivations behind those decisions.

2) Who are the secret supporters raising millions for his campaign? I'm not talking about the shadowy outside groups -- I'm talking about the people in charge of raising money for Romney's campaign and the Republican Party. Romney refuses to reveal his fundraising "bundlers," something even George W. Bush did when he ran for president. Why is that important? Because we'd never know whether these "bundlers" were getting special consideration in decisions made in a Romney White House.

3) What's up with this corporation in Bermuda? One of the Romneys' assets revealed in his 2010 tax returns is a corporation that had previously been transferred to a blind trust the day before he took office as governor. The single year of taxes he's released shows that at some point it was moved back into Romney's sole ownership. What's going on? And, crucially, what's the purpose of having a corporation in a known tax haven like Bermuda in the first place?

4) Why did he have a Swiss bank account? Even his closest allies, like Republican House Speaker John Boehner, can't explain why any American running for president would have ever kept his money in a secretive Swiss bank account.

5) When exactly did he stop running Bain? Today's Globe story sheds light on the two years he now claims he wasn't running the firm. According to legal documents Mitt Romney signed and filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission, he was the sole owner, chairman of the board, CEO, and president of Bain Capital, drawing a salary as an executive until late 2001, and legally responsible for decisions the company made until that time. The Romney campaign denies this report is true, but the SEC documents with Gov. Romney's signature are hard to refute. If he was in charge, it means his role in deals that led to layoffs, bankruptcies, and outsourcing is much deeper than he has admitted to date.

And people still think this guy's for the "average" American?

rhia_starsong: (Default)
You know what absolutely ludicrous phrase has got to die?  "Defence of traditional marriage."  Who the fuck thinks marriage needs to be defended?  It's a legal codification brought on by increasing wealth and property ownership and the need to pass that along when one dies to one's eldest son, in accordance with primogeniture laws (all of which are long gone, btw).  Biblical "marriage" is not modern legal marriage, and even early Catholics didn't have the same rules--it was incredibly common for pre-marital sex to see if the union was productive.  If not, no marriage.  But now, we have over 7 billion people.  There's no point in "defending" the majority sexuality.  It doesn't need defending.  And none of this says that a man and a woman can't still get married.  None of it says they have to have kids, either, which was the whole point of "marriage" originally.  And the part of the Bible people get all this shit from?  That's right, it's Leviticus.  That's in the Hebrew (Old) Testament, if you'll recall.  The part that says that only Israelites are worthy of God's love and attention?  The same book that bans the consumption of pork and shellfish?  Anyone think that our restaurants need defending from barbecue and seafood shops?  No? 
rhia_starsong: (Default)
So, I'm sitting here in class, and it has taken so long for ~2 hours to go by.  Part of that is just that I'm so sick of fighting with stupid Lexis Nexis--it keeps screwing up my login, and I had to rush to complete my homework just before class using someone else's borrowed login, then our in-class exercise required the professor to log several of us in for the same issue.  It's maddening, especially because the damn ID worked once.  And the fee to use Lexis is included in the cost of the programme, so I'm really not getting my money's worth with it, but I have too much stress in my life to have to deal with calling Lexis and getting it fixed.  I just don't feel like fighting my anxiety enough to bother.  I also hate that it continues to highlight my completely ridiculous fear of having to talk to people on the phone.  I really hope I can chuck that by the time I have to get an actual job, since talking to people on the phone is a large part of being a paralegal.  Gah.  Can I hit the pause button on life yet?


Okay, now we're going over the answers, which is actually really boring for me.  Only an hour and a half left of class, hopefully less if she lets us go early.  Also, it has been shown yet again that the American legal system is totally crap as regards women, and all men involved should just be drop-kicked back to the middle ages, since that's apparently where they want to be, anyway.  It's actually part of the law that women have no rights over their own bodies as pertains to unborn children unless the child is illegitimate.  Yes, that's right, modern law says we have virtually zero rights to our own reproductive organs, ladies!  Welcome to modern slavery, since not having any say in how her reproductive organs were used were hallmarks of 17th-19th century slavery all over the world.


Anyway, I'm glad to be done with that.  How is your life going, internet?

rhia_starsong: (Default)
Gah, I can't take it anymore.  I read SGA fic by a lot of different kinds of authors.  And, while often the pieces are very good, the details make the fic, and a few details always bug me and are very common.  First, everyone in the military is not a 'soldier'; soldiers are in the Army.  The correct general reference for someone in the Air Force is 'airman'.  Marines are either 'marines', 'jarheads' (so named for the haircut they give you in basic), and Navy are 'sailors' or 'squids'. 

Second, not all officers went to a service academy.  In fact, a very small percentage of military officers went to the service academies.  Most did ROTC in college.  As a corollary, all officers in the military have at least a bachelor's degree, and many, like pilots, have advanced degrees.  These are not stupid people.  Also, as a completely unrelated thing, not everyone from the South has a drawl or doesn't use correct grammar. 

Third, fraternization regs only apply to two military personnel in the same chain of command.  They do not apply to civilians at all. 

Fourth, and this is Stargate specific, the Ancients' ban on interference was only for ascended beings.  I see this in a lot of fics, so I know a lot of people don't remember this.  The non-intervention policy does not apply to corporeal, mortal Ancients.  

Okay, I'm glad I got that off my chest.  I know people don't intend to make these mistakes, and a lot of them aren't aware that they are mistakes.  I think there's an LJ comm that is specifically for people who have questions about military matters; don't remember the name of it, but it's there.  Wikipedia is also rather helpful for these things.  Don't take offense at this, okay?  Just, these things have bothered me for quite a while, and I felt the need to get it off my chest.  We'll save the rant on how people don't know colloquialisms because they only ever hear them rather than seeing them printed for another day (except, it's worse comes to worst; it means if something that's already bad gets worse--you can't have worse come to worst.  'Comes' in this instance elides the 'to pass' that should be there as in 'comes to pass').  

(Also, 'should of' etc. doesn't exist; what you're looking for is the contraction of 'should have' which is 'should've'.  And you can't pluralise something by adding 's to it; that makes it possessive.  And if something already ends in 's' you pluralise it by adding 'es', as in Jones becomes Joneses.  To make Jones possessive you just add an apostrophe, Jones'.)

Okay, I lied about the lack of a grammar rant.  Sorry.

rhia_starsong: (Default)
Well, I made it here alive, no thanks to this stupid city's lack of street signs and presence of way too many one-way streets.  Also, not having the address of the parking lot as opposed to the building didn't really help.  But I made it, so it's (mostly) okay.  And I can use my own laptop during class, which is excellent--I don't have to sully my life with Windows!  I really don't like using other people's computers, and that goes doubly so for public computers, so this was a real concern.  I have gone to a great deal of trouble to set up my laptop exactly the way I want it, and I hate having to use something else.
rhia_starsong: (lesigh)
Does anyone know why the style=mine isn't working all of a sudden?  I'm going to be incredibly pissed if those fuckers in LJ admin did something that stops me from using that at all.  I wouldn't put it past them to do something like this and not say anything.
rhia_starsong: (facepalm)
People are idiots.  I know this because of people who leave reviews on Google about places they visited and say things like, the place isn't "family-friendly" (i.e., it doesn't cater to bratty children above anyone else) because the morons in question brought a seven-month-old on a garden tour and then, when the baby made what the outraged parent claims were "very SUBTLE noises", stared at the rude parents when the kid interrupted the guide several times.  The nerve!  Yeah, like seven-month-olds know what subtle sounds are.  Please.  People, don't take your small children on tours, or really anywhere in public.  It's just rude.  And, yeah, you're gonna get glared at, because your kid's ruining the experience for everyone else who actually paid to get in.  Suck it up or suck on it, but don't whine about it on the internet in a review.

In other, more positive news, UNCC has finally, after months of effort, fixed every class on my transcript properly, so now I can apply for the paralegal programme and email them my unofficial transcript!  Yay!

rhia_starsong: (facepalm)
Ugh, next time some idiot of the Republican persuasion tries to claim that unionised workers are the root of all evil, blah blah blah, I'm going to ask him, "Oh, so you definitely don't watch the NFL.  Or the NBA, MLB, or NHL?  Because all of our major league sports players are union workers."  Pretty sure there's not a politician out there who'll admit to disliking major league sports.

In other news, I was feeling perfectly fine this morning until I finished breakfast and swallowed my morning pills.  Now I feel sick.  Ugh.
rhia_starsong: (facepalm)
Oh my god, the new Delicious site is awful.  It looks weird, it's less informative, it's a bad user interface and very confusing, it's really terrible.  I've tweeted them to let them know these things; you should too!  Why oh why must they change things that are working perfectly well?  Making things shinier does not make up for destroying a perfectly good existing system.  >:(

ETA: Does anyone know of a comparable site to Delicious?  I like having my bookmarks online where I can access them all the time, and I liked the way it used to do tags and stuff, but this new design is entirely unworkable.  Can any of you suggest an alternative?

rhia_starsong: (hf tenacious)
I am about ready to strangle someone at Gmail.  Their new ridiculous verification shit made me waste about 15 minutes this morning on a crappy school computer trying to log in so I could print an assignment due at 9:30.  The fucking CAPTCHA was nearly always illegible and then their "recovery" idea is to text your password to your cellphone.  Problem is, I don't bother with texts; I don't have it on my plan, and I get charged for every one that someone sends me.  And there was no option to tell them not to text me.  Google, I appreciate that you want to keep my email account safe, but find a better way to do it.  If I had waited until just before class to print this thing, I would have been late. 

No love,

rhia_starsong: (Default)
rhia_starsong: (foon)
Gah.  Is it really so difficult to programme in a feature for spell check that takes homophones into account?  Like, if you type 'your', it should flag it for review, and essentially ask, 'do you mean your (possessive), or you're (contraction of you are)?'  Same for there/their/they're.  A lot of this is the fault of oral-only communication.  Most people don't enunciate 'there'll' fully, so it does sound an awful lot like 'they'll'.  But surely that mix-up could be checked by spell-checker?  Also, if you type 'defiantly', it should automatically flag it as probable 'definitely'.  Really, everyone ever should pretty much have their spelling and grammar questioned out the wazoo before anything allows them to post to the internet or send an email or save a word document.  And spell checkers should absolutely come with definitions provided for a flagged word and for the spelling suggestions.  And yet, education continues to emphasise math and science over spelling, grammar, and reading the fucking English language.  Gah.
rhia_starsong: (facepalm)
Okay, it's gone on long enough.  Once again, we have incontrovertible proof that this country contains way more idiots than is just.  All these...people...who really just live to expound conspiracy theories and rumour- slash hate-mongering, it's time to shut the fuck up.  I mean, really--death panels?  How is it that millions of people can't perform a simple logic test that my friend's six-year-old could do?  Does it sound reasonable or logical that the federal government would institute a) something called a 'death panel' and b) something as stupid as a panel of 'experts' to decide who 'gets to die'?

Anyone with a functioning brain really should be able to come up with 'no' as the answer to both of these questions.  To think, we let these people drive cars and vote.  No wonder everything's fucked up.  Oh, and the hypocrisy award goes to all the medicare/medicaid recipients out there who decry a single-payer health insurance option and yet take blatant advantage of just such a programme.  And then there's the ever-obvious and yet so under-emphasised fact that, no matter what, all of this is optional.  If you like paying too much money so that insurance company execs get overcompensated, stick with your private insurance and leave the rest of us the fuck alone.

That is all for now.
rhia_starsong: (Default)
So, far from the serious, humble, straight-up apology that she regrets her offensive misportrayal of the facts, Rep. Virginia Foxx today offered a non-apology apology:  "I am esp. sorry if the grieving family was offended..."  She then blamed an ABC report which was made in the immediate aftermath of the attack, saying that the inconsistencies of parts of it showed the whole thing was untrustworthy.  Of course, in this frankly stupid and insincere effort at apologising, what the Representative failed to note was that the relevant part of the report, the part that no-one disputes, is the part that featured one of the then-suspects admitting that he knew Shepard socially and knew that he was gay, also saying that that was why he and his friends attacked Shepard.

So, harridan, I agree with Keith Olbermann: "Apologise, sincerely, or resign."  Those are the only options voters in the 5th Congressional District should ethically accept.

On a nearly-completely separate note, this hullaballoo over "Swine Flu": here's the deal, people; WASH YOUR FREAKING HANDS AND COVER YOUR MOUTH WHEN YOU COUGH, just like your mother told you when you were TWO.  There.  I've done the federal govt.'s job for them, they can go back to working on health insurance overhaul now.  Or, we could believe the moron Bush chose to run FEMA during Hurricane Katrina, and think that all the advice from the gov't. represents a "Chicken Little" attitude.  Yeah, heckuva job, Brownie.

rhia_starsong: (chasewtf)
Since probably only [livejournal.com profile] russianmissile has any idea who she is, let me provide the intro before the rant.  Ms. Foxx is, unfortunately, North Carolina's Congressional Representative from the 5th House District, over by Winston-Salem.  I've never had any reason to know anything about her before, as I live and vote in the 8th Congressional District.  However, I do know that I've routinely seen political signs for her over the nearly fifteen years I've lived here, so she keeps getting re-elected fairly easily, apparently.

However, what I heard come out of this woman's mouth, on the House floor no less, makes me outraged.  I'm sure most, if not all, of the Americans here will remember the name Matthew Shepard, but in case you don't he was a young man in Wyoming about a decade ago who was lured out of a bar by a gang of other young men, then robbed, beaten, pistol-whipped, and then tied to a fence post overnight in the freezing Wyoming winter.  And the excuse for this heinous act?  One of the murderers later confessed he knew Matthew was gay, so they pretended to be gay to lure him out of that bar, and leave him, badly beaten, tortured with a sharp object, and tied to a post, to die.  He was not found for 18 hours.

There was a Hate Crimes law named after him, signed by President Clinton, and it was this law which was apparently up for discussion in the House today.  Ms. Foxx took her opportunity to speak in order to give voice to vicious lies, saying that 'we know that [the Matthew Shepard incident] was really a hoax.' 

Yes, that's right.  Apparently, Rep. Foxx's version of things had this pegged as just a robbery.  No, this young man certainly didn't suffer horribly because hate-filled idiots targetted him and tortured him and killed him because of his sexuality, because he was gay.  Nope, if you relied on the House minutes today for your facts on this crime, you'd think nothing but a robbery took place. 

And all this pales in comparison when you learn that Matthew Shepard's mother was in the House gallery, having to hear this woman spread lies about her son, and disparage both his suffering and death as well as the law named for him aimed at enforcing harsher penalties for people who commit crimes motivated by an ideology of hate like this.

I cannot imagine what she must have felt, but more, I cannot imaging what possible motivation Rep. Foxx could have had in being so cruel, so disingenuous as to try to rewrite history which I certainly remember as happening, and in doing so, add just a little more intolerance and hate to the world.


Feb. 21st, 2009 04:19 pm
rhia_starsong: (Default)
Well.  We lost.  And I will say straight up that the team we played were very good, and we did not at all look like the team we have been.  However, I think the biggest factor in this game was THE EFFIN' REFS.

I mean, everyone could tell these guys were godawful.  They called tons of fouls on us that weren't there, or that they didn't call when the other team blatantly committed them, they failed to call lots of things, not just fouls, and it was just really bad.  The NCAA should suspend these guys. 

Not that we helped ourselves much; Steph Curry only had 20 points, and we just really looked bad on offencive boards, got the ball stripped from us on fast breaks and driving to the basket, the works.  Ugh.  We need a turnaround, and fast.


rhia_starsong: (Default)

Custom Text

April 2017

910 1112131415


RSS Atom

Most Popular Tags

Style Credit

Expand Cut Tags

No cut tags
Page generated Sep. 20th, 2017 05:42 am
Powered by Dreamwidth Studios