Why Plinko hates you.

the life and times of one jaded motherfucker.

E-mail Plinko

Uncle Phil

:.News of the World.:
Washington Post
NY Times
Howard Kurtz
Leonard Pitts
The Onion

:.On Wisconsin.:
Milwaukee J-S
Wheeler Report
Gannett Wisconsin

Penny Arcade


:.Current Book.:
Woman In the Dark - Dashiell Hammett

:.Last 6 Books.:
The Catcher In the Rye - JD Salinger
Grendel - John Gardner
Paddy Clarke Ha Ha Ha - Roddy Doyle
The Road - Cormac McCarthy
Theft - Peter Carey
Saturday - Ian McEwan

:. Bands .:
Dismemberment Plan
Jets to Brazil
Promise Ring

Mark Helprin
Kazuo Ishiguro
Wilkie Collins
William Faulkner
Philip K. Dick
Dashiell Hammett

The Lord of the Rings
J.R.R. Tolkien
Frank Herbert
Dan Simmons
The Dark Tower
Stephen King

02/01/2001 - 03/01/2001 03/01/2001 - 04/01/2001 04/01/2001 - 05/01/2001 05/01/2001 - 06/01/2001 06/01/2001 - 07/01/2001 07/01/2001 - 08/01/2001 08/01/2001 - 09/01/2001 09/01/2001 - 10/01/2001 10/01/2001 - 11/01/2001 11/01/2001 - 12/01/2001 12/01/2001 - 01/01/2002 01/01/2002 - 02/01/2002 02/01/2002 - 03/01/2002 03/01/2002 - 04/01/2002 04/01/2002 - 05/01/2002 05/01/2002 - 06/01/2002 06/01/2002 - 07/01/2002 07/01/2002 - 08/01/2002 08/01/2002 - 09/01/2002 09/01/2002 - 10/01/2002 10/01/2002 - 11/01/2002 11/01/2002 - 12/01/2002 12/01/2002 - 01/01/2003 01/01/2003 - 02/01/2003 02/01/2003 - 03/01/2003 03/01/2003 - 04/01/2003 04/01/2003 - 05/01/2003 05/01/2003 - 06/01/2003 06/01/2003 - 07/01/2003 07/01/2003 - 08/01/2003 08/01/2003 - 09/01/2003 09/01/2003 - 10/01/2003 10/01/2003 - 11/01/2003 11/01/2003 - 12/01/2003 12/01/2003 - 01/01/2004 01/01/2004 - 02/01/2004 02/01/2004 - 03/01/2004 03/01/2004 - 04/01/2004 04/01/2004 - 05/01/2004 05/01/2004 - 06/01/2004 06/01/2004 - 07/01/2004 07/01/2004 - 08/01/2004 11/01/2005 - 12/01/2005 12/01/2005 - 01/01/2006 01/01/2006 - 02/01/2006 02/01/2006 - 03/01/2006 04/01/2006 - 05/01/2006 05/01/2006 - 06/01/2006 06/01/2006 - 07/01/2006 07/01/2006 - 08/01/2006 08/01/2006 - 09/01/2006 09/01/2006 - 10/01/2006 10/01/2006 - 11/01/2006 12/01/2006 - 01/01/2007
This page is powered by Blogger. Why isn't yours?

Monday, June 26
Boy I wish I were smart enough to figure out how to play with MSN conversations so it looked like both sides of the conversation were switched. That would be awesome and hilarious.

Friday, June 23
Not much, what's snu with you?

My quest to return to winter continues. I expect to interview with a Milwaukee company soon. Well, I better, is all I have to say. In order to move the process forward, I was required to inform my bosses of my intention to interview. Now that the cat is out of the proverbial bag, they'd better make good on that.

So, you might well be aware of the current rhetoric about a lot of things. Wars, flags, fags (said capriciously for humorous rhyming only), taxes and such. There is a sentiment out there that we are now, more than ever, factionalized and many, if not most, of us see everything through our filters of culture, class, religion, what-have-you. That we are, ourselves, spin doctors and ideologues of the highest order. That we are all a member of a whiny special interest.

I say this not to confirm or deny, but to mention that I recently realized that I have one of those filters that I see every related issue through (its a little narrow, so it's not like I think about it all the time). It's noteworthy because I think it's a little odd.

As you probably know, I am an child of adoptive parents. Recently, there has been a lot of tripe floating around the news media about some issues that I follow and that I always think to myself 'they never give any weight to the adoption view'. Abortion is of course the primary villain, where the debate is always cast as the loony pro-lifers vs. the hirstute pro-choicers, etc, while the way adoption impacts the debate is often left out of the discussion.

Not that I want to get into that right now. The thing is, there are two other 'big' issues out there that made me realize how thoroughly I am a partisan on the pro-adoption front. Mainly, there has been a lot of heated discussion about breast-feeding children following an Ad Council PSA likening bottle feeding to dangerous activities that might treated the life or health of a child. Now, there are several points of view represented in the numerous news stories and opinion pieces flying around, but none of them seem to come from the view of adoptive parents - who logically cannot follow the recommendation. There's a lot of huff and puff about giving women a guilt trip if they feel they cannot breast-feed because they want to go back to work, or because they find it uncomfortable. There's a lot of ZOMG! special interest lobbyists influencing public policy! shenanigans claiming it's all because the infant formula industry campaigned to have the ads curtailed. I only see my view, that a lot of people cannot comply with the recommendation, so why are they out there saying you're a terrible person if you don't? Because they're all jerks, that's why.

Issue #2 is a new book which I probably will pick up and read soon. It's troubling to me, in that it's an expose of girls who got pregnant in the pre Roe v. Wade 50s and 60s and were basically sent off to have their children in secret before having them taken away to be given up for adoption. Not because it isn't a story worth being told, but because I recognize that (having not read it yet, but gleaning enough from the customer reviews and NY Times review) it must, in it's way, make adoption seem terrible.

Now, I am bright enough to hold a nuanced view of the subject. After all, no right-thinking person would advocate forcibly taking newborns from their mothers. But, I can't help but think that it will do it's part to degrade adoption in people's minds, even if only a little, even though the subject matter of the book is (mostly, in the US) a past phenomenon. It was reading this review that made me realize how fiercely partisan I am on this subject.

That said, I still don't have any empathy for others who only can see all things through their issue/political party/religious affiliation/race/class lens. They're all still bad persons. After all, it's one thing to see it, it's another to let that take over your mind. After all, I'm going to pick up the book (couldn't find it at a store yesterday, so it's Internet commerce time!) and read it, and I bet I won't even write a letter to anyone about it.

On a wholly different subject, this is the kind of shit I have to put up with. And don't believe anyone who denies this is exactly how this conversation went down. Copy-and-paste does NOT lie!

Dasco says:
Dasco says:
do you think it's rude to IM with someone while you browse the Interweb for porn?
Dasco says:
sounds lovely
Ryan says:
Dasco says:
so no, then?
Ryan says:
depends on who you're im-ing
Ryan says:
I'll let you be then
Dasco says:
are there ground rules
Dasco says:
like ok to IM chicks but not dudes while looking at porn?
Dasco says:
or vice versa?
Ryan says:
im-ing with a dude while proning it up is very very gay
Dasco says:
If my pants are zipped, does that have any impact on the level of rudeness?
Ryan says:
Ryan says:
bye bye
Dasco says:
why do people hate me?
Ryan says:
see above, about what you're doing while talking to me
Dasco says:
I didn't say I WAS doing it
Ryan says:
Dasco says:
maybe I'm just curious
Ryan says:
Dasco says:
maybe I had this issue before and now I'm asking you for moral direction
Dasco says:
guide me, oh paragon of virtue!
Ryan says:
well, you got my answer then

Saturday, June 10
Let me just say this: I've been working a lot.

In my fantasy dream land, this blog is the place where I throw in my two cents about the world and what's going on in it. Superficially, I might seem to be the world's least exciting person. But, if nothing else, I am fairly well versed in the issues of the day, the result of reading over four (online versions of) newspapers each day.

The problem is, I generally read them while on break at work, but I think it's a bad idea to post from there, and by the time I roll into the driveway at 9pm each night, whatever got me going in the morning really doesn't bother me much any longer.

That said, I read this little article (suggesting that employers are looking up job applicants online and using what they find to help them make a hiring decision) in the NY Times this morning and it made me wonder.

You see, I personally like the idea that people who do or say stupid things might actually realize some consequences to their idiocy.

But, on the other hand, we all know the Internet is a blunt tool, and I wonder how many people might have lost out on jobs because something online that wasn't about them. I mean, if you do a search on 'Google' for my name, no result on the first four or five pages refer to me. Even if you narrow the search by adding my small city hometown, only about half of them have anything to do with me. (Fortunately, I went through and made it much harder for people to find this site by using my name in a search engine).

So think about it, few of us have a unique name. So, while a thoughtful scrupulous person might be pretty good at ensuring that they only use information they find to be rock-solid; another person might stumble upon some terrible things in a case of mistaken identity. And if that were to happen, what chance does the vicitm have to clear their name?

On the subject of applying for jobs, I think the odds are slim I'll be taking any jobs in Viking country any time soon. I may be looking at the Milwaukee area soon, though.

Further, I have purchased plane tickets back to the Valley area for the weekend of Independence Day, so there's that.