14 posts tagged “dickface”

How did you meet your current, or most recent, significant other?

Yeah, thanks, Vox--rub it in.  Like Valentine's Day isn't enough.

Thanks, dickface.

Okay, I'm fed up!  Why, noble reader?  Because of the ex-gays!!  There is no end to the self-delusion and ignorance that these people will go to to make themselves sound like they are right (which, of course, they are not).

I am going to respond to the comment thread from this post here, since I have been banned from commenting by at least two members of the ex-gay neighborhood on Vox (apparently, they just say "open dialogue " but don't know what it means--I left ONE comment on ONE BLOG ONCE and two people moderate comments?  Christ, people).  You don't have to read the comments thread there if you can't stomach it; I'll quote the relevant bits as I go.

Randy went to protest a meeting of the American Psychiatric Association because they do not support the efforts of people who want to change their sexuality.  He says (in a discussion in the comments):

"Faith or not, change happens and for the APA to say that I don't exist or that it is unethical to help someone change is a tragedy.  They should be a help not a hindrance.  I want the APA to live up to their own standards because it could be of tremendous benefit for those of us who want to change." (emphasis mine)

Apparently, Randy hasn't actually read what the "standards" of the APA are.  Their vision statement reads, in part:

"... [T]o ensure humane care and effective treatment for all persons with mental disorders, including mental retardation and substance-related disorders."

Since homosexuality is not a mental disorder, the APA really has no say on the matter.  A psychiatrist, confronted with a patient who wants to change his or her sexuality, has an obligation to say, "Sorry, that isn't something I can help you with; I only treat mental disorders."  This should be the same as their response if a patient came in and said, "I'm a lefty but I really want to be a righty,"  or "I'm a dog person but my girlfriend has this cat..."  NOT a mental disorder, and thus beyond the purvue of psychiatry.

Additionally, Randy claims that "change happens."  Despite Randy's clear lack of understanding of science, even he should realize that his personal experience does not a proved hypothesis make.  The APA values statement clearly says (it's a bullet list; hard to get clearer) that they value "scientifically established principles of treatment."  Although Randy might like to think that he gets to decide what science is, he (thankfully) does not.  The fact is, there is absolutely no evidence whatsoever that homosexuals can change their sexual orientation.  There is, however, evidence that, with lots of adversive training and counseling, gay men can settle down with a woman and have kids and a family.  But in all of these cases, the men were still sexually attracted to men and not to women.  Their behaviour changed, not who they are.  So, even if homosexuality were a mental disorder and thus warranted treatment, a psychiatrist confronted with a gay patient would be unethical in saying anything other than, "I would love to help you because you have a mental disorder, but I can't because there is no scientifically-proven method to treat your disorder."

Randy likes to say throughout this conversation that the denial of ex-gays on the part of the APA is "political,"  but let's be clear about something:  the APA used to make "political" decisions (and here I mean "influenced by general concensus," which I assume is what he means; the APA has never asked politicians to weigh in on the matter); it did this when it included homosexuality in the DSM in the first place.  Removing homosexuality, however, was a scientific decision, not a political one.

Finally, Dean, the other major participant in this coversation, points out that "to condemn homosexuality as immoral and unnatural requires that one make a theological judgment."  This seems--to me, anyway--to be so glaringly obvious as to warrant the kind of confused, nonsensical God-talk that usually comes from evangelicals to hide the fact that they don't know what they are talking about.

And yet Randy tries to challenge this point!  "I don't think that to view homosexuality as immoral or unnatural takes only a theological judgment...."  He doesn't, of course, say where else one might get such an idea, although I might pre-emptively point out that the ex-gay movement is strongly (read: exclusively) evangelical, and that I have yet to meet an athiest who thinks that homosexuality is immoral or unnatural.  I would also say that all of the gay animals

And besides, if religion isn't the only possible justification for anti-gay sentiment, then where does your self hatred come from, exactly? tromping around pretty much closes the "unnatural" line of argument.

It is 1:12am and I am not sleeping.  Normally, I would be sleeping at this time, but I had too much coffee today it seems.  I didn't really have THAT much coffee, only four cups.  And I have taken a full double dose of Ambien.  Surely I should be at least thinking about bed.  But I can't.  The only thing I have any interest in is sorting the disorganized boxes of papers/files/folders/notes/etc that are left from when I moved back in May.

I suppose that's productive and good and all, but I really need to be in bed by now.  I have oodles and oodles of kits and caboodles* to do tomorrow, and much sleep that needs to happen between now and then.  You bastard, Ambien!  Dickface

*indicates intoxication from unsafe levels of Ambien.

"Humans are idiots and I don't care!"

Thanks, Dickfaces.  Way to understand how smart stingrays are.  Jesus Christ we are doomed.

Running today totally sucked.  It was an early-morning run, thanks to be new running buddy's schedule, and I don't think my body quite had time to recover from the last run.  My hips are SUPER sore (for some reason I keep imagining the head of my femur being all "BITCH!").  Hopefully the weekend will give me a chance recover before things step up for week two.

While icing my various aches and pains I've been watching C-SPAN2's coverage of the House Energy & Commerce Committee's hearings on climate change.  I hate to be partisan about the whole thing, but the republicans on this panel are complete and total idiots.  Every single one of them misunderstands every word spoken to them by the panel of scientists.  Every last goddamn scientist on the panel, despite being at odds with each other about pretty much everything else, agrees that a) the planet is warming at an unprecedented rate (oh, one disagrees with this--the anti-climate change guy who has no PhD or other credentials but "studied at Oxford") and b) that human activity is the cause.  Despite this, all of the republicans on the panel are constantly asking shady questions to dodge this fact.  Some highlights:

• The gentlelady from Tennessee asks one of the scientists if he would be willing to subject his work to an independent panel of review BEFORE if gets published.  Despite his rather long-winded attempts to explain what "peer review" means, the gentlelady accuses him of "avoiding the question."
• The gentleman from (somewhere else; missed it) uses yesterday's newspaper, with temperatures ranging from the low 40s to the high 80s, to ridicule the prediction of disastrous consequences if global temperatures rise only 3 or 4 degrees.  Despite the fact that one of the scientists on the panel attempts to explain that "climate" and "weather" are distinct, the gentleman remains "a skeptic."

Where in god's name do these people come from???  Speaking of god, the preacher on TV earlier today mentioned that "[g]od smiles down on those who please him."

I leave you with that.

... of a conversation on KLNE regarding Pluto being demoted from planet to dwarf planet status:

Female Broadcaster: "Dwarf planet??  What's next, hobbit planets??"
Male Broadcaster: "Um... Do you think Pluto's sad about this?"
FBc: "I bet he is!"
MBc: (in very stern voice) "Why would you call a planet 'he'?"
FBc: "I don't know!  Pluto is a boy's name.  Like the dog!"
MBc: "Oh.  Didn't know that."

Thanks again, Dickfaces.

After a rather drunken round of "List your all-time five favorite movies," Katra and I decided we absolutely HAD to watch Contact as soon as possible because it is just so effing good.  And it is, mind you, but the totally obnoxious back story about how the lead--a ball-busting scientist obsessed with her work and with few social skills--lost her mother and father at a young age got me thinking.  How often is it that we've seen a hardcore lady scientist who is obsessed with her work, and whose loss of her parent(s) plays a large part of her motivation??  Often, I say!

A similar situation is found in Bones, where Temperance Brennan's parents (best TV show name ever, by the way) are abducted when she is young.  Her "lack of parents" is constantly address during the show, and implied as an excuse for her lack of socializing and her hard-core work ethic.

And what about Surface?  Well, there is a dedicated female scientist, who may or may not have lost her parents (I can't recall exactly, and the Internets refuse to give up the truth--damned Internets).  If she did lose her parents, then she is another example of just what I am talking about.  If she didn't, well then, on to the next paragraph...  (On a side note, if you haven't seen Surface, you need to rent/buy the complete series on DVD.  Yup, complete series.  Yet another great show that got fricking cancelled.  Thanks, Network Dickfaces).

Why do female scientists have to have some traumatic loss of parental support in order to be good at what they do?  And why do they always have to social awkward?  Did female scientists miss the feminist movement??  Are they still head back by patriarchy??

You decide.

I went to the casino with the fam this evening (to celebrate my parent's 27th anniversary--swear!).  The slots were HOT when I got there (no double entendre, please), and my $20* quickly turned into $130 and then, as if by magic, quickly back into $20.  I did end up leaving with an extra $20 in my pocket, though, so I suppose everything worked itself out by the end, which is nice.

Everything working itself out is not as nice, mind, as winning in excess of $21,000 like the gent from a few slots down.  That's more than I make in a YEAR, people.  A YEAR.  And he was even sitting at the progressive bank of slots that I wanted to sit at (again, no double entendre, please**), but which was full (...).  Thanks, Dickface.  Now I have to work this coming year instead of paying for my education with a free-but-odd mixture of white/Indian blood money.

I will say this though--if you've never seen anyone win 20Gs at the slots, you should check it out.  Lots of gawking standers-by and annoyed casino employees, all shuffling about with mostly trasparent looks of gluttony on their faces.  It's really a site to behold.  So grand was the event that my camera phone was unable to completely capture the moment:

The large white square at the middle ought to say "WINNER!!!  $21,078.16!!!!!!!" in flashy, crazy always changing letters.  You dig?

*All money is the US kind.  Convert to your preferred currency here.
**Why does the word 'slots' always sound horribly dirty to me?

How well do you know your next-door neighbors?

I wish I knew them better.  Then maybe I wouldn't feel quite so ripped off when they don't pay me for the Internet we are spliting (their idea).  Thanks, Dickface.

I mentioned this briefly before (and rather ungracefully; I blame Whiskey), but this has gotten OUT OF CONTROL.  Here is a sampling of headlines from rawstory.com today, along with a synopsis of what the story is actually about.  Some are totally misleading (like the first), others are nonsense and some are just dishonest.

HEADLINES:

"Judge disciplined for cheering killer" - A Washington judge was disciplined for making the courtroom cheer the Seattle Seahawks, who had just made it to the Superbowl, before allowing them to take their seats so she could read a verdict.

"Hezbollah hacks the internet worldwide" - Hezbollah has hacked servers in various locales in order to post their propaganda.  (This sounds like a travel poster to me, all "EXPERIENCE THE INTERNET WORLDWIDE" written over a picture of a waterfall.)

"Punk rock 'quietly' rising in China" - The word "quietly" appears nowhere in the article to which this link leads.

"Duping CDs for friends straddles legal line" - They mean "duplicating" not "duping."  Not sure how one would "dupe" a CD.

"Fight effects, not global warming" - Coherent after you realize "effects" refers to "effects of global warming."

"Moscow rues Lonely Planet portrayal" - I could be wrong, but I think Moscow being pissed and launching a campaign against Lonely Planet exceeds the semantics of "rue" by just a bit, if you can even "rue" your perceived victimization at the hands of another.

"US oil production plunges by 8%" - Actually a story about the upcoming closure of the AK pipeline, with an anticipated 8% drop in production.

"Israeli cops ban gay demonstration" - The City of Jerusalem canceled a protest over the canceling of a gay rights demonstration.

This represents a rather significant portion of their front page--or, if rawstory.com were quoting me, "99% OF STORIES FALSIFIED."  Thanks, Dickface.