Gah.

Me and my laptop last night:

L: *starts to boot* Oooh, I detect new hardware!

Me: *blinks* Wha-?

L: I'll just see if I can locate the drivers.

Me: *holds laptop up, looks around* Um, there's no new hardware.

L: Yes there is.

Me: No, there really isn't.

L: You just don't see it, but I know it's there.

Me: Right.

L: Oh dear...

Me: ?!

L: I, uh, seem to have done something to the registry. Something bad.

Me: ?!!!

L: You'd better reboot in Safe Mode.

Me: *alarmed* Ok, ok, Safe Mode, troubleshooter, right, got it.

L: I know, why don't you restore the registry? It's easy and it'll fix everything right up.

Me: Uh, ok, I'll just click on "Restore Registry" and...

L: Oh, no, sorry, you can't do that.

Me: But you just said...

L: Yes, well that was before you tried it, I was reasonably sure it would work, but now, obviously, it won't.

Me: Reasonably? But...

L: Why don't you just find yourself a nice DOS prompt and type in "scanreg/fix", that'll take care of it.

Me: Are you sure?

L: Oh absolutely.

Me: All right, then, I'll just reboot and...wait, why are you suddenly acting like nothing's wrong?

L: Huh?

Me: You just booted properly without me having to do anything else, I thought I had to fix the registry.

L: What are you talking about? Nothing to see here. La, la, la....

Me: *fumes*

(no subject)

You know, just when I think Bill O'Reilly can't possibly be more of a prick than he already is, He just has to go and prove me wrong:

O'Reilly is literally trying to get Keith Olbermann fired:

February 22, 2006

Chairman Robert Wright
National Broadcasting Company
30 Rockefeller Plaza
New York, New York 10112

Dear Chairman Wright:

We, the undersigned, are becoming increasingly concerned about the well-being of MSNBC and, in particular, note the continuing ratings failure of the program currently airing weeknights on that network at 8:00 PM EST.

It is now apparent to everyone that a grave injustice has been done to the previous host for that time slot, Phil Donahue, whose ratings, at the time of his show's cancellation three years ago, were demonstrably stronger than those of the current host.

Therefore, in an effort to rescue MSNBC from the ratings basement and to restore the honor and dignity of Mr. Donahue, who was ignobly removed as host three years ago, we ask that you immediately bring Phil Donahue's show back at 8:00 PM EST before any more damage is done.

If you would like to express your support for this issue please fill in the information below and press the "Sign the Petition" button. Your signature will be added from the information you provide below. To protect your privacy, your last name will not be displayed on the web site.

Oh Falafel-boy, is your ego really that fragile? Wait..don't answer that.

Fetus-hood vs. Personhood

I have to say I found Lance Mannion's latest post on the abortion debate both interesting and decidedly frustrating. I was trying to put my own ideas together to respond, but then Rana in the comments said it far better than I ever could:

I hate to say it, but for me the personhood of the fetus is beside the point. Presumably one of the rights of human beings is the right to control their own bodies. This is why we do not legally require people with O-negative blood to donate blood, why we do not legally require parents to donate kidneys to their children, why we do not legally require children to donate marrow to their parents, why we do not legally require anyone to give up any of their body in order to support someone else's.

It is true that a fetus, especially one that is more pre-term than one that is nearly ready to be born, lacks the ability to live without the biological contribution of the woman in whose womb it exists. So why should its need for a woman's uterus trump the woman's right to control her own body, given that a need of this kind carries no legal compulsion for any other category of person?

Now, there may be moral or ethical obligations that devolve upon the mother -- or the blood donor, or the organ donor, et al. -- in a situation like this, but those are the purview of churches and individuals, not government. I especially do not approve of the legal imposition of the moral code of a belief system I find to be vicious, rigid, and anti-woman, as if my own moral code was not good enough.

I personally would be reluctant to have an abortion if I became pregnant, because I _do_ believe in that fetuses are more than just clusters of cells, but that decision to give over my body and health to the support of another human being should be MINE. Not my partner's, not the fetus's, and certainly not that of judgemental, self-righteous people who know nothing about me or my life and couldn't care less about what happens to me during the pregnancy or either me or the child after birth.

So whether the fetus is a pre-baby or a clump of parasitic cells is not decisve to me. Either one believes that women have the same right as men, children, and fetuses to control their own bodies, in which case one must reject restrictions on abortion of any kind, or one is choosing to see women as legally inferior to the rest of humanity.

We may wish that adult female human beings behave in selfless ways, but I find it morally repugnant to single them out for legal coercion when they choose to exercise the same rights to bodily integrity that the rest of humanity can exercise unimpeded.

Yeah, that about sums it up for me.

I *heart* Hagan

This is too beautiful for words:

Plan would bar Ohio adoptions by GOP
By Carl Chancellor
Beacon Journal staff writer

If a Youngstown lawmaker's proposal becomes Ohio law, Republicans would be barred from being adoptive parents.

State Sen. Robert Hagan sent out e-mails to fellow lawmakers late Wednesday night, stating that he intends to ``introduce legislation in the near future that would ban households with one or more Republican voters from adopting children or acting as foster parents.'' The e-mail ended with a request for co-sponsorship.

On Thursday, the Democrat said he had not yet found a co-sponsor.

Hagan said his ``tongue was planted firmly in cheek'' when he drafted the proposed legislation.

However, Hagan said that the point he is trying to make is nonetheless very serious.

Hagan said his legislation was written in response to a bill introduced in the Ohio House this month by Rep. Ron Hood, R-Ashville, that is aimed at prohibiting gay adoption.

``We need to see what we are doing,'' said Hagan, who called Hood's proposed bill blatantly discriminatory and extremely divisive. Hagan called Hood and the eight other conservative House Republicans who backed the anti-gay adoption bill ``homophobic.''

Hood's bill, which does not have support of House leadership, seeks to ban children from being placed for adoption or foster care in homes where the prospective parent or a roommate is homosexual, bisexual or transgender.

To further lampoon Hood's bill, Hagan wrote in his mock proposal that ``credible research'' shows that adopted children raised in Republican households are more at risk for developing ``emotional problems, social stigmas, inflated egos, and alarming lack of tolerance for others they deem different than themselves and an air of overconfidence to mask their insecurities.''

However, Hagan admitted that he has no scientific evidence to support the above claims.

Just as ``Hood had no scientific evidence'' to back his assertion that having gay parents was detrimental to children, Hagan said.

``It flies in the face of reason when we need to reform our education system, address health care and environmental issues that we put energy and wasted time legislation (Hood's) like this,'' continued Hagan, who has been in the Ohio Senate nine years. Before the Senate, he served 19 years in the Ohio House.