Sunday, October 22, 2006


What do you call a bunch of drunk people in white? Terry!

So my friend Alli came up on Saturday to hang out. she really wanted to go wine tasting and as we had just bought the SB axxess card, and got quite a few free tasting from the local wineries, we thought sure why not. We hit up Sunstone, Kylara, and the Fess Parker, as we didn't leave the house until 2:00 pm we ran out of time to go anywhere else. Sunstone and Kylara were fun, nothing strange going on just a bunch of people enjoying the weekend. It was at the Fess Parker that things got a little weird.

We drive up and see about 50 people all in white running around on the grass and playing frisbee. OK why everyone was wearing white we weren't sure but we figured it was some sorority thing. Then Alli and I ran into 3 of them in the ladies room and decided to ask what was going on. A visibly drunk woman in a goodwill wedding dress told us "We are likescientologists without the aliens (is that even possible?). We are equals so we're call each other Terry. I'm Terry, she's Terry, we're all Terry. And we're all getting married this weekend!"

Alli and I leave thinking that it was all some big joke. But as we're exploring the grounds we see the Terrys standing in a big circle, and then they all crowd together yelling stuff. We weren't really sure what was going on but we were entertained. A man there said they come up on weekends get drunk and marry a new partner. Seemed like a big excuse to come up to the wine country, get drunk, and get laid.

Thursday, October 05, 2006

What Exactly Is Substance?

Ok I was going to finish writing that story on the two girls that walked into my journalism class last Tuesday but after writing it, it came out boring so I decided not to post it.

Instead I read an article on slashdot of an Indiana University study about the Daily Show having as much substance as regular news shows. The article was short but interesting, the headline summarizes it. But what was more entertaining was the commentary below beneath the article. I found a list of bullet points that one commentator made about the current Republican party, that is to say the ones in power, not Republicans in general. And that all of the bullets could be backed up with how elected officials were acting.
  • Government has a legitimate role in enforcing personal morality.
  • Unilateral use of force for purposes other than immediate defense of oneself or one's allies is not inherently illegitimate.
  • Achieving military objectives is more important than maintaining personal liberties.
  • A free media threatens legitimate governmental interests unless placed under substantial controls.
  • A strong, empowered leader granted wide powers (with which to attack our enemies) is a Good Thing.
  • The executive branch of government may have a legitimate need to act outside of the law, and should be able to prevent laws from being enforced which could hamper its actions (when those actions are taken in the interests of national security).
  • The executive branch of government should be able to avoid transparency when it sees fit, including in cases where it uses its powers to act in a manner not consistent with standing law in the interests of national security.
  • Questioning strong leadership in the context of an active conflict is inherently unpatriotic.
  • Noncitizens do not need to be granted the same rights as citizens.
When listed these characteristics are scary and very Orwellian. I mean sure its not like our president is a dictator or that they don't share information, but who gets to say they've gone to far? When you keep giving yourself more and more authority who do you answer to? Is being safe more important the personal liberties? Is it more important to fold the toilet paper or just bunch it up before using?