Proof!

I have said that I self-identify as an extreme moderate. IN truth, I'm probably more accurately just right of center. I would generally describe myself as fiscally conservative and socially liberal, favoring strong defense and tough penalties for crimal acts.

Here's proof (unfortunately, none of these seem to allow for embedding into blogs):

I scored 26 here, making me right of center, just like Daddy Bush (25). "Respondents with the most points (40) are 100 percent conservative; those with the least (0) are 100 percent liberal." Jesse Jackson is 0; Colin Powell is 20; and Ronald Regan is 40.

Over here, however, I score as a Liberal. The chart is below. My Personal Issues score is 80%, and my Economic Issues score is 30%. Please note, I did choose McCain as my 2008 candiate.



This quiz is more detailed. Scores are based on a scale of 1 to 12. I fall into a pretty dead-center postion.

Conservative/Progressive score: 6.
You are a social moderate. You think the progressive movement is overall well meaning, but sometimes it goes too far. On issues like abortion and affirmative action, you see the negatives of both extremes on the issue. You probably value religion, but at the same time you think it should still stay separate from the government.

Capitalist Purist/Social Capitalist score: 5.
You are a Moderate Capitalist. You support an economy that is by and large a free market, but has public programs to help people who can't help themselves or need a little help. Pretty much you believe in the American economy how it currently is.

Libertarian/Authoritarian score: 7.
You're a Moderate. You think that we all have certain inalienable rights that must be protected, but that sometimes laws need to be made to protect the majority's lives or quality of lives. You might think that the 2nd amendment isn't necessary anymore because letting everyone a gun is extremely dangerous to the community. You might also be against illegal drug use or public pornography because of its possible harmful effects to society.

Pacifist/Militarist score: 10.
You're a Militarist. You believe that since the United States has so much power in the world, it has a responsibility to keep the world safe. You think that if the US does not exert its power in the world, it may eventually lose its power, and that we can not look weak in the face of terrorists, and must take them out where they live.

Overall, you would most likely fit into the category of Moderate.

This quiz is even more complex. This shows my political compass. I am at 2.00 on the Economic Left/Right axis, and -0.97 on the Social Libertarian/Authoritarian axis.



So, that obviously proves it. I mean, internet quizzes don't lie, right?

Flashback -- Post-Election, 2004

I used to belong to belong to a really great message board originally dedicated to the Whedon-verse (i.e., Buffy the Vampire Slayer, Angel, and Firefly). The members of the board are known as the Buffistas. I don't remember exactly when I started reading the board; it was probably around 1998. I have found this group to be extremely intelligent and witty, willing to offer well reasoned arguements for their positions, be they political arguments or (more frequently) if re-souled Spike deserves to be redeemed or not. I never posted much (believe it or not, I tend to be rather shy, even online), but I genuinely felt these people were friends.

Over the years, as the Whedon shows ended and other shows took their place, the group became more fractured and diverse, and it became harder for me to keep track of all the various threads. Over the last several months, as my life has taken some difficult turns, I've mostly lost interest in following the Buffistas. I may go back to reading them once the new TV season starts, but I find I'm not really missing them.

The Buffistas as a group are mostly left/liberal leaning. Although political discussions happen, they aren't a big focus of the group. When they do happen, there's generally a lot bashing of conservative ideas and demonizing of Bush. But, again, it hasn't been a hot bed for these discussions.

After the 2004 election, I wandered over into the Natter thread, where most of the political discussions happened. I understood the complaints about Bush, but I wanted to understand why people thought Kerry was such a better alternative. I never got a satisfactory answer, but I saw what I considered to be a lot of uncharacteristic nasty attacks on "those idiots" who voted for Bush. I ventured out of my comfort zone to issue one person's reasoning for an unpopular decision. I actaully received a lot of support and thanks for it, although a few people continued to be nasty.

I offer an edited version of that post here today, to try to lay the ground for some future posts.

******

First, I want to give a little background and context for my view. I beg your indulgence.

Politics played no real part in my life until I was an adult. I vaguely remember Carter being president and listening to my mom and grandma complaining about Regan in 1980, but really my family was pretty apolitical and didn’t even watch the evening news. From 1980-1983, we lived in Sicily, and I went to a DoD school on base. I learned patriotic songs and we said the Pledge of Allegiance every day, and I learned to be proud of being American. I still am. I still cry when I hear “The Star-Spangled Banner”.

My parents divorced when I was 13, and I started picking up my mom’s and grandma’s Democratic leanings. I couldn’t tell you exactly why they are Democrats, and I’m not sure they could either. They just are, because It’s Right.

In high school, two of my teachers, a married couple, were unabashed true blue Democrats. They made no secret of their beliefs. The man was my history teacher, and he had a giant poster of the World as Ronnie saw it. It cracked me up.

But one day, I started thinking, and I realized I didn’t see things as clearly as those around me did. I saw that progress was being made with the US relations with the Soviet Union, and I was excited and happy. I wanted to see that progress continue. I was six months too young to vote in 1988, but I would have voted for Daddy Bush, because I believed it was important that Reagan’s foreign policies continue and that they would through Bush.

Between 1988 and 1992, I continued to become more aware of the world around me. I returned to a more extreme “justice for all and leave my body alone” position. I voted for Clinton in 1992 because I truly believed in his domestic policies and believed it was time to focus on the situation at home.

Something for me changed between 1992 and 2000. When I was in college, I happened to hear a statistic on the news that something like 1 in 5 pregnancies in the US were aborted. 20%. It seemed like such a high number. It made me sad. Sometime after, maybe a year later, there was a pro-choice rally on campus. I didn’t go. I don’t like crowds. I don’t like crowds with a cause, whether I agree with them or not. The next day I read an article in the campus paper about the rally One young woman was quoted as saying, “Abortion isn’t a choice. It’s a fact of life.” Another was quoted, “It’s no big issue, it’s just like my period.”

I completely disconnected with the pro-choice movement the moment I read this. I am pro-choice. I believe in safe, legal abortions. I know the official pro-life argument is “Safe, Legal, and Rare”, but the “Rare” seems to get lost too often. Personally, I believe every abortion is a tragedy, a waste, and a loss of potential that shouldn’t have to happen. More on this later.

I chose not to vote for Clinton in 1996. I felt his re-election was guaranteed. I was satisfied with the status quo, but not so satisfied as to cast a vote of confidence for Clinton. If the results were less certain, I probably would have cast that vote.

I realized I was disconnecting with the feminist movement soon thereafter. I felt like (and still feel) that feminist movement promotes a culture of victimhood and abdication of personal responsibility that I cannot relate to and do not understand. I do not believe that all feminists share the “official” view, and some may even agree with me.

I saw the same group of people that championed Anita Hill vilify Paula Jones, Juanita Broadrrick, and other women who spoke out against Clinton and his alleged treatment of them. I couldn’t understand. Certainly all women deserve to be protected from predatory men, not just Democratic women from Republican men? Granted, there should be strong evidence, because I try to live by “Innocent until proven guilty”, but that didn’t seem to be the case. The Monica situation was dismissed as being none of our business, in spite of the fact that it was originally brought up in Paula Jones’ civil lawsuit as evidence of a behavior pattern. It seemed to me that everyone was happy to give Clinton a pass because he was doing a good job.

I was in favor of Clinton’s impeachment and removal from office. I saw Clinton’s high crime and misdemeanor not as a crime of tawdry adultery but as a gross abuse of power and professional misconduct at the very least. Clinton, the Democratic champion and man of the people, conspired and lied to deny a woman her civil rights. Many people gave him a pass for that. Whether you agree or disagree, Martha Stewart is serving jail time for less. I cannot understand the continuing adulation of him. Now he may want the position of Secretary General of the U.N. Given the current state of the U.N., Clinton could fit right in.

I changed my party affiliation from “Democrat” to “Independent” during the Impeachment hearings. I didn’t then, and don’t now, wish to be associated with either party.

In 2000, I was baffled that Al Gore would be considered a good president. I couldn’t understand why those who championed free speech would want Senator and Mrs. PMRC in charge of anything. I disliked his hypocritical bashing of the entertainment industry as he stroked them for money and endorsements. I didn’t feel he had any real goal for wanting to be president, other than the title itself. I voted for Bush then, and I was proud to do so. I thought he would be a good leader.

On 9/11, my world changed. People to whom I was connected, albeit only tenuously, died horrible deaths. I realized, really for the first time, that people hate Americans for simply being American. It shook me to my core. I realized that there are people in this world who want me dead simply because I am a free, educated, opinionated, strong woman. They want my husband dead for approving of this fact. They want my family dead. They want my Buffistas dead. And I have no intention of standing for it.

But then, and I remember this very clearly, I read, right here in this community, fears that Bush was going to start a war. I was simply boggled, flummoxed, confused. Hadn’t a war already been started? By somebody other than Bush? What was I hearing? Where was the All-American desire to fight back? Why did the same people, who applauded the destruction of the Mayor and every other Big Bad on BtVS, not want to fight back? I still don’t quite understand what the anti-Bush side thinks should be done as a response to 9/11. I don’t believe reason will work with the likes of Al Qaida, and I still dislike going to the mall at Christmas time.

I cannot put my positions in convenient nutshell. I am an Extreme Moderate. I champion freedom and civil rights for all people, regardless of nationality, and I believe all people want these basic rights. I believe America has an obligation to help those who cannot help themselves gain these freedoms, if not in action then by example. I believe we have the obligation to defend those liberties from those who want to take them from us.

I am not Christian. Christian morality plays no part in my own personal moral code. I believe in a higher power; you can call it God if you want. I think of it as that force that is greater than myself, that inspires Dante, Mozart, Michelangelo and other great human achievements. Mostly, I naively believe in humanity, flaws and all.

I am pro-death penalty, but only for the most extreme crimes. I cannot feel badly for Tim McVeigh.

I believe that gun control laws are useless if they are not enforced, and I believe that most people who want to do Bad Things with guns will find a way to do so. Really is someone not going to rob a bank with a gun because they are afraid of being prosecuted for breaking gun control laws?

I am pro-choice, but I believe the pro-choice movement would be better served to more vocally promote sex education and personal responsibility. It seems the “pro-abortion” camp gets all the press and publicity. I believe that if the movement conceded some ground on abortion issues such as parental notification for pregnant minors, they would have more credibility with people in the middle. I believe that a simple acknowledgement that sometimes a man does have an emotional and/or financial stake in a woman’s decision regarding her pregnancy would also lend credibility to the movement. Conceding ground does not have to lead to a slippery slope. Some does not equal all. These are my wishes. I don’t expect everyone, or even anyone, to agree with me.

I am pro-gay rights. I see no good reason why such rights should be denied. For this election cycle, however, this was not a primary concern for me. Yes, I considered it before making my decision.

I am in favor of stem-cell research and other scientific endeavors. I don’t know that it is government’s responsibility to fund scientific research any more than it is government’s responsibility to fund the arts. Both are equally important to humanity, but I believe that more and better results are produced faster and more cheaply when financed privately by organizations who believe in the project at hand. I also believe that unused fertility clinic embryos should be used for this research. The waste of their disposal saddens me.

Yes, I voted for Bush on Tuesday. I have real concerns about a second Bush term, and I face it with my fingers crossed and hopes high. I had actual fears about a Kerry administration. I would have faced his presidency with the same attitude, although I might not feel the need to write all this.

I fully support the war in Iraq. I truly believe there was a massive international intelligence failure with regard to the WMDs. Why do I say this? Because there was also a massive international intelligence failure concerning a nuclear program in Libya. Nobody knew Libya had weapons. We invaded Iraq, and suddenly Ghadafi is turning over weapons and being cooperative. As intelligence failures go, I want to err on the side of caution.

I do not believe our troops are sacrificing their lives for nothing. I believe that the cause of freedom is never without sacrifice. I don’t believe our country should be responsible for gaining the freedom of every oppressed people, although I truly wish we could. I believe Saddam was a genuine threat, and the timing and degree of that threat was uncertain enough to warrant clear and decisive action. I wish things had happened differently, but I don’t think diplomacy was ever going to be possible. I wish things were going better, but I believe pulling the troops out would be a moral failure. We have committed, rightly or wrongly, to give freedom to the Iraqi people. We cannot leave until they are ready to shoulder that responsibility for themselves. To do otherwise would truly make the world a more dangerous place.
This brings me to my fears of a Kerry administration.

Kerry lost any chance he may have had to win my vote when Iraq’s Interim President Allawi came to the US. Kerry had the opportunity to attend a joint session of Congress, which he failed to take advantage of. He did not bother to arrange a meeting, publicly or privately, with Allawi. Kerry, who says he wants to rebuild our international relations, instead shit all over this man who has risked his life everyday for I don’t know how long—Allawi, who was, yes, picked by the US but also approved by the UN. The same UN Kerry holds in such high esteem. This is not the kind of behavior I expect from a man who wants to be president.
Now, I don’t trust the UN. I believe the UN is about as corrupt as an organization can be. The examples are too numerous to catalogue. The fact that the UN Oil-for-Food program was probably being run as a money-laundering scheme for Saddam reinforces this belief. I believe that the Weapons Inspections were being run in such a way that we could never know if Iraq had WMDs. My fear is that Saddam would have used his connections with the Oil-for-Food program to lift sanctions and would have restarted his weapons program.

I fear that Kerry, with his professed internationalist tendencies, would have placed the interests of the international community ahead of the best interests of the US. I do not ever want to see the US in that position. We have fought too hard, with other countries and with ourselves, to allow that to happen. I am afraid that Kerry would have allowed our troops to be tried for war crimes in an international court. I believe that the soldiers who abused prisoners at Abu Graib were punished sufficiently by our own court martial procedures. I see no reason to believe that an international court, which is accountable to no entity but itself, should ever decide how to punish our people. Given Kerry’s anti-war efforts in the Viet Nam era, I feel that is a real concern.

On healthcare, Kerry would have had more credibility with me had he not chosen a man who has made millions of dollars suing doctors. Healthcare costs are going up for a reason, and Edwards hasn’t helped any. I see the need for healthcare reform. I don’t believe either candidate will/would do much beyond pay lip service to the issue.

Finally, I never saw Kerry DO anything. He has no substantial record of accomplishment in 20 years as a Senator, except the accomplishment of being repeatedly re-elected. I heard so many comments about how presidential he looked during the first debate. On the day of the first debate, Kerry relaxed at a spa and got a manicure. Bush spent the day passing out ice and water to victims of yet another hurricane in my beloved state. It may have been a photo-op, but he did it nevertheless. On that day, Kerry may have looked presidential; Bush was presidential.

I hope Kerry uses the remainder of his senatorial term, and perhaps his future terms, to work towards the agenda he pushed as a presidential candidate. He has the attention of the public; even if he fails, I would love to see him work for those goals, whether I agree with them or not.

I know a Bush presidency could be ugly. I feel a Kerry presidency would have been equally, albeit differently, ugly. I cast my vote in the hotly contested state of Florida with no knowledge of the outcome. I reassured myself by reminding myself that we are Americans. We are resilient. We bounce back. It’s what we do.

In the show Assassins, by Sondehim, there is a song called “Another National Anthem”. The various assassins enumerate their complaints against the country and the reasons for their attempted or actualized assassinations. The Balladeer explains to them that their actions make the country hurt, but it always heals itself: “You forgot about the country…/And you forgot/how quick it heals.”

Sometimes, I wish I were less moderate, less ambivalent. I wish I could see things with such utter certainty as some here seem to. I can’t. I’m just not wired that way. The only thing I think I’m certain of is that nothing is as certain as we would like it to be.

I don’t embrace the Republican Party any more or less than I embrace the Democratic Party. I made my vote using all the knowledge and ability to reason I had and all the faith in humanity I possess. It may have been a bad decision, and bad things may come of it. I will not regret it and I will not apologize for it. If bad things happen, I have faith that the people of this country will work to set it right, and I will hope the work will spur great radical changes that I can support. If bad things don’t happen, or if good things happen, I will breathe a great sigh of relief and thank humanity for its inherent collective wisdom.

Ultimately, I never trust my “leaders”. Their time is limited and temporary. I trust the people who elect them, as well as those who don’t, to lead us all. I hope we can be united in our similarities and in our differences. I believe that those who do not want to be led by fear and intolerance will not themselves lead with fear and intolerance.

I would be lying if I said the comments I have read here have not been painful. I continued to read, because, like many of you, I wanted to understand how “the other side could make such a terrible choice”. I’m still not entirely sure I understand, but I keep trying. If it’s any consolation, and I’m sure it’s really not, I understand the pain and disappointment and heartbreak. I don’t blame those of you who have lashed out in anger. It hurts to feel you are being demonized and called a moron by those on the other side. I honestly hope the release of negative energy allows you to move forward in a positive direction.

I hope this has cast some illumination on why one person cast her vote for Bush. I don’t expect anyone here to like it, I hope someone understands it, and I hope everyone here will respect that it is mine and truly made in good faith for the reasons stated.

A Return

Hi.

It's been a really rough year. If you've followed Outis' blog or its previous incarnation, you probably know most of it. If you have just stumbled over here by happenstance, here's the short version:

January: The house was robbed, and our computer and miscellaneous inexpensive (but very sentimental) jewelery was stolen. Seriously, who needs my class ring?

February: Outis' mother was hospitalized with what was apparently a mini-stroke.

March

April: Outis lost his job of 4-1/2 years, for no real reason except that he was 10 weeks from qualifying for pension benefits and his boss is/was a colassal ass.

May: We found out that Outis' brother (18+ years his senior) was diagnosed with terminal lung cancer and isn't expected to make it much past Labor Day.

The rest of the summer has been spent dealing with family issues, fighting for unemployement compensation (he won!), and trying to find a job for Outis. (Anyone need a math guy?)

It hasn't all been bad. I did get a promotion at the job that I love, which really only means that the company gets to charge a higher billing rate for my work, but it's a nice vote of confidence given everything else that's been going on. (I did get a reasonable raise, which almost covers the cost of gas for my commute each day.)

Given the most unfortunate previous post, it's been really hard to come back to this crazy little thing called blogging.

The political race, however, has gotten interesting. I thought I might want to post some thoughts from time to time, rather than wait for Outis to make his thoughts known.

However, it's now very late. More tomorrow or Monday, unless the family situation changes.

Finally!

Life seems to be returning to something vaguely resembling normal. We found out how much our insurance check will be, and I’m rather impressed. I had calculated the amount of our losses and had expected the insurance to settle for some amount less than that; to my surprise, they are settling for about the amount I calculated. Yay insurance!

We have a new computer, and we are slowly rebuilding our files and getting to know Vista. So far, Vista isn’t as bad as I expected, but I would have preferred XP. The new computer itself looks like a piece of Imperial technology, and I am convinced that it’s going to build the Death Star and blow us all up.

The best thing so far is finding a way to not lose all our iTunes files. While iTunes has a way to allow you to transfer your iTunes purchases from your iPod to your iTunes library, it does not allow you to transfer the rest of your music files from the iPod to the library. It is really most inconvenient. However, through the iTunes Help forum, I learned about this free program that will allow you to do just that. Now, I did chose to upgrade to the Pro version for $15 so I could preserve my playlists, but I think it was worth the money.

Of course, if dealing with the aftermath of the robbery wasn’t enough, work decided to implode for both me and T. Now, T is at the busiest part of his work year, so he knew this was coming. I have been buried under no fewer than 25 reports which all had to be done RIGHT NOW. Of course, at least one set of reports was already several months overdue, so I get that particular urgency; but really people, I was ready to get them out by their due dates. On the upside, I’ve been getting lots of compliments from our clients about the work I’m producing. Here’s hoping that gets reflected in our next round of reviews.

I’m so very ready for a vacation. Or at least a full weekend without going to the office.

Humanity Sucks...

like a big, giant sucking thing that sucks. Really. Not that I'm bitter.

Also, what does one wear when one must go on a pawn shop crawl?

The problem with blogging

Is the reason that I finished with grad school after I completed my Master's degree. I hate writing. It's really very hard to be an English major pursuing a Ph.D. when one would much rather read than write.

That's been problem here. Blogging takes up time that I would generally rather be reading, and I've read rather a lot the last few years.

Have I mentioned how much I love my local library? They bring books right to my house, to my front door!

All I have to do is visit their website, request a book, and a week or two later, it's at my door. I read it (always making sure to renew it online if necessary) and return it to my local branch when I'm finsihed. It's wonderful. They have almost every book I would ever want to read, plus CDs and DVDs. I don't even go to the book store anymore. I make donations to my library instead of buying books. It's a great system.

Here's a list of all the books I've read from the library in the last few years, starting in February 2005. The list is in order checked out. (The library keeps a history of things I check out.)

The Briar King, J. Gregory Keyes
The Witch in the Well, Sharan Newman.
Plainsong: a Fable for the Millennium, Deborah Grabien.
Eyes in the Fire, Deborah Grabien.
The Subtle Knife, Philip Pullman
The Charnel Prince, J. Gregory Keyes
The Iron Tree, Cecilia Dart-Thornton
The Curious Incident of the Dog in the Night-time, Mark Haddon
The Amber Spyglass, Philip Pullman
Dirk Gently's Holistic Detective Agency, Douglas Adams
Extremely Loud and Incredibly Close, Jonathan Safran Foer
The Famous Flower of Serving Men, Deborah Grabien
The Hero and the Crown, Robin McKinley
Spindle's End, Robin McKinley
Rose Daughter, Robin McKinley
Assassin's Apprentice, Robin Hobb
Josie and Jack, Kelly Braffet
The Ninth Life of Louis Drax, Liz Jensen
Sir Apropos of Nothing, Peter David
A Game of Thrones, George R. R. Martin
The Curse of Chalion, Lois McMaster Bujold
Across the Nightingale Floor, Lian Hearn
A Clash of Kings, George R. R. Martin
The Nameless Day, Sara Douglass.
Married to the Mouse: Walt Disney World and Orlando, Richard E. Foglesong
The Legendary Mizners, Alva Johnston
Royal Assassin, Robin Hobb
The Dark Mirror, Juliet Marillier
Godslayer, Jacqueline Carey
Assassin's Quest, Robin Hobb
A Storm of Swords, George R. R. Martin
Son of a Witch, Gregory Maguire
Fool's Errand, Robin Hobb
Anansi Boys, Neil Gaiman
Grass for His Pillow, Lian Hearn
A Feast for Crows, George R. R. Martin
Hades' Daughter, Sara Douglass
Matty Groves, Deborah Grabien
Golden Fool, Robin Hobb
Brilliance of the Moon, Lian Hearn
Gods' Concubine, Sara Douglass
Fool's Fate, Robin Hobb
Maus I: a Survivor's Tale, Art Spiegelman
Darkwitch Rising, Sara Douglass
Eragon, Christopher Paolini
Maus II: a Survivor's Tale, Art Spiegelman
Eldest, Christopher Paolini
His Majesty's Dragon, Naomi Novik
The Tattooed Map, Barbara Hodgson
The Orange Girl, Jostein Gaarder
Myrren's Gift, Fiona McIntosh
The Wayfarer Redemption, Sara Douglass
To Your Scattered Bodies Go, Philip José Farmer
Druid's Sword, Sara Douglass
Kushiel's Scion, Jacqueline Carey
Blood and Memory, Fiona McIntosh
Tigana, Guy Gavriel Kay
The Confessions of Max Tivoli, Andrew Sean Greer
The Stolen Child, Keith Donohue
Bridge of Souls, Fiona McIntosh
The Gunslinger, Stephen King
Enchanter, Sara Douglass
The Fiery Cross, Diana Gabaldon
Starman, Sara Douglass
The Elder Gods, David Eddings
The Thirteenth Tale, Diane Setterfield
The Berlin Stories, The Last of Mr. Norris. Goodbye to Berlin, Christopher Isherwood
Sinner, Sara Douglass
Endymion Spring, Matthew Skelton
The Drawing of the Three, Stephen King
Sebastian, Anne Bishop
The Wolves in the Walls, Neil Gaiman
MirrorMask, Neil Gaiman
Once upon a Time (She Said), Jane Yolen
Pilgrim, Sara Douglass
Don't Panic: Douglas Adams & the Hitchiker's Guide to the Galaxy, Neil Gaiman
The Faery Reel: Tales from the Twilight Realm, Edited by Ellen Datlow & Terri Windling
Black Heart,Ivory Bones, Edited by Ellen Datlow & Terri Windling
Fragile Things: Short Fictions and Wonders, Neil Gaiman
Cruel Sister, Deborah Grabien
The Neverending Story, Michael Ende
Rhapsody: Child of Blood, Elizabeth Haydon
The Waste Lands, Stephen King
Beyond the Hanging Wall, Sara Douglass
Prophecy: Child of Earth, Elizabeth Haydon
Destiny: Child of the Sky, Elizabeth Haydon
Wizard and Glass, Stephen King
Black Sun Rising, C. S.Friedman
Wildwood Dancing, Juliet Marillier
Gothic!: Ten Original Dark Tales, edited by Deborah Noyes
Requiem for the Sun, Elizabeth Haydon
Belladonna, Anne Bishop
A Breath of Snow and Ashes, Diana Gabaldon
Persepolis, Marjane Satrapi
Elegy for a Lost Star, Elizabeth Haydon
Wolves of the Calla, Stephen King
The Damon Runyon Omnibus, Damon Runyon
The Yiddish Policemen's Union, Michael Chabon
The Serpent Bride, Sara Douglass
Odalisque, Fiona McIntosh
Rules of Ascension, David B. Coe
Kushiel's Justice, Jacqueline Carey
The War of the Flowers, Tad Williams
The Last Light of the Sun, Guy Gavriel Kay
Lord of Snow and Shadows, Sarah Ash
Song of Susannah, Stephen King
Seeds of Betrayal, David B. Coe
The Assassin King, Elizabeth Haydon
Prisoner of the Iron Tower, Sarah Ash
Children of the Serpent Gate, Sarah Ash
Bonds of Vengeance, David B. Coe
The Blood Knight, J. Gregory Keyes
Transformation, Carol Berg
Tales, H. P. Lovecraft
Shapers of Darkness, David B. Coe
Restoration, Carol Berg
Revelation, Carol Berg
Song of the Beast, Carol Berg
Son of Avonar, Carol Berg
Wolfblade, Jennifer Fallon
Poison Study, Maria V. Snyder
Beguilement, Lois McMaster Bujold
Empire of Ivory, Naomi Novik
Weavers of War, David B. Coe
Dreamsongs. Volume I, George R. R. Martin
Magic Study, Maria V. Snyder
Guardians of the Keep, Carol Berg
The Dark Tower, Stephen King
Warrior, Jennifer Fallon
Legacy, Lois McMaster Bujold
The Soul Weaver, Carol Berg
Warlord, Jennifer Fallon
The Sorcerers' Plague, David B. Coe
Medalon, Jennifer Fallon


I am apparently averaging a little more than a book a week.

In addition to this list, I've read several books that I own. This year, that list includes "The Fionavar Tapestry" trilogy by Guy Gavriel Kay; Harry Potter 7, Thirteen Moons by Charles Frazer, and Threshold by Sara Douglass, that I remember off the top of my head. I've also re-read the original "Kushiel's Legacy" trilogy and Neil Gaiman's Neverwhere. (They're great comfort reads.)

I've just starting re-reading A Game of Thrones by George R. R. Martin. It's such a big, sweeping series, and I feel the need to re-read the story thus far before the next book comes out, hopefully this fall.

I'm always looking for recommendations if anyone has any

Apologies & Finally, Disney Part 2

I owe my three readers (maybe that's an optimistic overstatement) for the non-blogging. I had every intention of finishing the DisneyLand post. I had a pretty good time. Of course, there are family issues, and the more I thought about the Disney trip, the more I thought about the time spent with family there, which was stressful and tense for many reasons, and I just couldn't make myself write any more about it.

I do want to mention the "new" "Finding Nemo" submarine ride. Seriously, they closed "20,000 Leagues" for this? The line was endless, but then it always was. It would have been fine if they had a canopy over the queue for shade, but they only has semi-strategically placed moveable umbrellas. Perhaps I’ve been to Disney World too many time, where they figured out how to protect the guests from overwhelming heat.

Once we got to the ride, it was a cross between the new “The Seas with Nemo and Friends” at Epcot and the old “20,000 Leagues” ride. As we rode through the water, images were projected onto the portal windows that made it appear as though Nemo and friends were swimming through the water. The plot of the ride followed the plot of the movie (Spoiler alert: They find Nemo!), and the water was filled with jellyfish swarms and current turbulence. Our sub was stalled toward the end. The crew cast said we should look for the sea monster and the old ruins, as an homage to the original ride, but I didn’t see anything. Since I have an unreasonable love of the sea monster I looked really hard. (He was crosseyed, and his tongue hung out like a puppy. My eight-year-old self fell in love!)

On the other hand, the clock tower which houses “it’s a small world” was back to the original white and gold color scheme I love. I do think it is one of the more beautiful architectural facades I’ve ever seen. It touches a deeply buried sentimental side in me that taps into the child in me. I always remember how beautiful I thought it was when I first saw it when I was about four. When I took Icepick out there during the summer of 1996, it had been painted in an assortment of pastels and wasn’t nearly as pretty as I remembered. I thought my memory was faulty until I saw it during my trip.





It also bears mentioning that the “small world” ride itself is significantly different enough from its Disney World to merit riding. It’s expanded and has more tableaus (including mermaids). Embrace the song. It’s hopeful and optimistic, and we can all use a little of that in our lives. (Note: I have been known to frighten people by singing all the verses. It’s a gift.)

One more note, if you want to avoid some of the crowds, you can have your ticket take at the monorail entrance at Downtown Disney. The monorail will drop you in Tomorrow Land, right in the middle of the Nemo submarine line. It turns out it is possible to spend the several hours at DisneyLand and never actually see the castle (which is still closed anyway. Stupid security measures.).

A good time was ultimately had by all. It was just so blasted hot, which made everybody cranky, no matter how much I insisted we go back to the hotel room and return in the evening. See, in Florida, we have the good sense to stay indoors until at least 5:00; it’s how we survive.

So that sums up the Disney trip. The other days were spent visiting family in the desert until I could make my escape to the loving arms of my husband and my cats. On the up side, I don’t think I will have to go back any time soon. Everyone seemed very excited about the prospect of us starting a family this year and understood the need to save money. We’ll see how it goes.

Hope springs eternal

Is it wrong that I hope these two crazy kids can somehow make it work?

A Bosnian couple are getting divorced after finding out they had been secretly chatting each other up online under fake names.

Disneyland Vacation, Part 1

I’ve been meaning to blog about my trip to California, but as always, life keeps interfering with blogging. I’m not sure how other people manage to do it all.

In the last 15 or so months, I’ve made four trip to the west coast. My grandmother had a stroke in April ’06, on her 81st birthday, and she has been living with my mother since she left the rehab facility the following August. To say the situation is stressful is putting it mildly. Grams is basically bed-ridden. She has no movement in her left side. She can sit in a wheelchair but becomes uncomfortable after just a few hours. My mother has a nurse come in Monday-Friday to take care of Grams, but after 5:00 and on the weekends, her care is provided by my mother and sister. To top it off, Grams view of reality is, well, distorted. The problem, however, is that if you were to ask her the right questions (Who is the President? What football team do you like? What are the names of the baseball teams in the L.A area? Where do your granddaughters live?), she can answer you and seem perfectly lucid. On the other hand, she gets very worried about me if she hears that there are tornadoes in Florida (Is the airport OK? How are you going to get home?), and she asked me if I felt the recent Peruvian earthquake.

For this trip, I wanted to try to get my mother and sister to relax. It was my mother’s 60th birthday, and my sister and I asked my aunt to come stay with Grams so my sister and mother could get out of town for a few days. We decided that it might be fun if we went to Disneyland for a few days.

Please note that, as Orlando residents, T and I have annual passes to Walt Disney World, and we make good use of them. We go to the parks several times a year and are very familiar with certain details. My observations below are based in large part on my experiences here.

We stayed for three nights (Saturday through Monday) at Disney’s Grand Californian Resort. The hotel was just gorgeous. This is the premier hotel at the Disneyland Resort (DLR) and is most comparable in quality to the Grand Floridian at Walt Disney World (WDW) (you can tell by the way the names are similar). Stylistically, the resort is closer to the Wilderness Lodge at WDW, although it's actually based on the art and crafts movement and not really a rustic Pacific Northwest theme. There was a tour offered about the hotel and its design, but I didn't get the chance to go, as it was right in the middle of the day.

It was very nice hotel though. The entrance way is a gorgeous stained glass. I was able to get a quick, not-too-terrible picture of it when it was briefly closed.



The room was a standard room, two queen beds and a day bed, mini-fridge, DVD player. The shower curtain was decorated by images of Bambi and Thumper (this will be a funny detail later). Prints from Snow White and the Seven Dwarves were on the walls.

The lobby was a comfortable place to sit and relax. The floors were a mix of inlaid wood and soft carpeting, that was sunken to be level with the wood floor. There was a lovely stone fireplace. Also, the house phones in the lobby were real rotary phones with cloth-covered straight cords! When I dialed our room number (3205), I had to wait until it turned all the way back from the 0. It was very exciting.

Our first night there was Mom's birthday, so we made arrangements to have dinner at their signature restaurant: Napa Rose. I wish I had the menu so I could tell you exactly what we had, because I forgot to take notes. We started with appetizers: Mom had some sort of eggplant dish that she said was "OK"; my sister (Sis) had sea scallops that she just loved; and I had the "summer tart" -- honey-mustard roasted rabbit in a tart shell. Mom and Sis were alarmed at my choice of appetizer. Rabbit? Really? shouldn't I be concerned about eating a cute fuzzy bunny? I simply explained that rabbits were hardly endangered, and I had never tasted rabbit meat before. I must say I'm looking forward to eating more. It was really good. For the main course, Mom chose the safe filet mignon. Sis was aiming that direction, but I knew she would be happier with the side items accompanying the beef short ribs, so she chose that. I had lamb chops cooked two ways; Osso Buco-style and ____(?) At any rate, they were delicious. I was eating cuteness everywhere. Dessert was a cappuccino mousse and chocolate torte. It was good and very rich, but I couldn't eat it all.

Upon arriving back at the room, and taking care of my business, Sis asked me (kiddingly) how I could possibly look at Thumper on shower curtain without feeling guilty. I just started referring to my appetizer as the "Thumper Tart".

Now, I spent my teenage years in the southern California desert. I've been fortunate enough to have visited Disneyland a good half-dozen or so times in my life. That said, I haven't visited the park since 1996, when I took T out west to visit my family before we got married. The DLR is a whole new animal to me, and if you've never been, I highly recommend it.

Unlike WDW, the DLR has been set up for everything to be within walking distance. Directly outside one exit of the Grand Californian is the Downtown Disney (DTD)entertainment complex, with shops, restaurants, and movies. At one end of DTD are the entrances to the two theme parks: Disneyland and the newer Disney's California Adventure. At the other end of DTD are the other two Disney-owned hotels. Another exit from the Grand Californian (and one of the great side benefits of staying at the hotel) is a private entrance/exit directly to California Adventure.

Sunday morning we wandered around DTD briefly and had breakfast at the La Brea Bakery (tar pits were nowhere in sight). It was a good meal, though I thought over-priced. Although, I did enjoy a couple of lovely cinnamon-apple sausage links.

We spent the rest of Sunday at California Adventure. This was the first time any of us had been to this park. Overall, I think it's a nice enough park, and it has some gorgeous details: The giant sun fountain in sunshine plaza, the "Paradise Pier" area.





Mom suggested we ride the Grizzly River Run rapids water ride first thing. I think we got her to do four or five other attractions that day, so it was exciting that she actually volunteered to go on one of the more "thrilling" ones and the one guaranteed to get us soaked. The ride is centered around Grizzly Rock. I'm pretty sure this is the park's icon. Anyway, it's pretty neat looking for Disney rock, although not nearly as subtle as the Jaffar rock at Animal Kingdom (note to self: get picture of Jaffar rock).



Sis and I rode the Golden Zephyr, which was a nice calm spaceship ride that went around in about 3-1/2, maybe four, times. On the up side, there were no lines for it. I also fulfilled my promise to Sis and went on the two roller coasters: California Screamin' and Mulholland Madness. California Screamin' wasn't too bad, although I have no intention of riding it again. Mulholland Madness, a "mini-coaster" terrified me. It was filled with all these tight hairpin turns, and being the fat girl I am, I was afraid my weight was going to shift the balance of the car right off the tracks. At least the cars themselves don't spin, ala Primeval Whirl at Disney's Animal Kingdom.



We tried to get Mom to go on the Sun Wheel (giant Ferris wheel), but she wouldn't go for it.

We did see Golden Dreams, the movie about California. It was kind of depressing in places: Spanish missionaries bring terrible diseases to the native peoples; Chinese railroad workers get blown up; a Japanese picture bride gets pelted by tomatoes by bigots. But, they overcame their hardships to build the great state of California. Why Whoopi Goldberg was chosen to play Califa, the spirit goddess of CA, I'll never know. Also, the film begins with the statue of Califa becoming "animated", just like the statue of Thetis is animated by Maggie Smith's face in Clash of the Titans. I kept expecting her head to roll off as she cursed us to a horrible doom!

We also saw Muppets 3-D, which is always fun. And we rode the Monsters, Inc. Mike & Sully to the Rescue! ride; a dark ride basically re-telling the Monsters, Inc. ride. Very cute. The two attractions had some of my favorite exterior designs. The first is a door just outside the exit to Muppets 3-D. I love the signs. The second two are the facade to Monsters, Inc., which reminds me of a trippy version of the "it's a small world" ride and the next is one of the "posters" in the queue for the ride. Look closely.







We also decided that Triton's Carousel was Mom-safe. I don't have pictures of that, but it did appear to have a real, honest-to-god, calliope making the music.

We toured the animation exhibits, which were very neat, but I wish we could have toured a real working animation studio, like we used to be able to do here before they shut it down. (grumblemumblebittergrumble)

Finally, we rode Soarin' Over California, or just Soarin' as we call it at Epcot. This is just an awesome ride that I insist all visitors to Disney Parks take time to see. It's a hang-glider simulation over the California landscape, complete with sweet smells. The line for this ride was only 25 minutes. I've never seen it shorter than an hour here.

Which gets me to my next observation. We went to California Adventure during the last Sunday in August, a week before Labor Day. We waited in almost no lines. The park was not even a little crowded, by park standards. It was a little weird. I'm not sure why it's not doing better, but I was definitely surprised.

We ate dinner at Wine Country Trattoria. Mediocre Italian food. Eh. This was probably my most disappointing dining experience at any Disney Park. I've had better Italian food, and much better choices, at Macaroni Grille.

We finished Sunday night by stopping by the candy store (where I got my favorite candy: dark chocolate honeycomb, yum!) and watching my favorite parade ever: The Main Street Electrical Parade. Of course, since it's at California Adventure it's just called Disney's Electrical Parade, but whatever. It's the old traditional parade, with the same floats and music. It just makes me happy. The entire parade route was lined with people, but they were only one or two deep. We found a nice bench and sat for the parade the whole time. We couldn't have asked for better seats. I loved it!

Anyway, that captures Saturday (the arrival and dinner) and Sunday. I'll tell you about Tuesday later.

EDIT: OOPS! I meant to promise that I will blog about Monday and Tuesday later, probably this weekend. As it turns out I'm too verbose to write much during the week.

Meanwhile...

Several many days ago, Bill, over at So Quoted, had this post about greats songs of the 90s. My first thought was "The 90s had great songs?" (What? I'm an 80s girl, now and forever!) My second thought was "Wait! How many can I choose?"

So, in no particular order, my list of great 90s songs that I've thought of during the last several days. I've tried really hard to stay away from most covers and showtunes unless they were really exceptional.

"Lucas with the Lid off" Lucas
"Mysterious Ways" U2
"As I Lay Me down to Sleep" Sophie B. Hawkins
"Winter" Tori Amos
"All I Want" Toad the Wet Sprocket (They also win for best band name of the 90s.)
"Mmmbop" Hanson (I dare you to listen to this without smiling.)
"Mr. Jones" Counting Crows ("I felt so symbolic yesterday")
"Man on the Moon" R.E.M.
"Wicked Game" Chris Issak
"Under the Bridge" Red Hot Chili Peppers
"What a Good Boy" Barnaked Ladies
"Little Bird" Annie Lennox
"Tom" Audra McDonald
"The Air that I Breathe" k.d. lang
"Nothing Compares 2 U" Sinead O'Connor
"Hello (Turn Your Radio On)" Shakespear's Sister
"Nothing Else Matters" Metallica
"Stay" Lisa Loeb
"Buddy Holly" Weezer
"Sometimes Always" The Jesus and Mary Chain (with Mazzey Star)
"My Ship" Dawn Upshaw
"Zoot Suit Riot" Cherry Poppin' Daddies (Worst band name. Ick.)

Why?

Biblical toys grace Wal-Mart shelves

Ok, granted, I'm not Christian, and I'm barely spiritual, but something about this idea gives me the heebie-jeebies. I can't help but think that this is just wrong.

Maybe it's got something to do with the Commandment prohibiting graven images or some such. Maybe I have just enough awe of whatever Holy Spirit that may be "out there" that I don't think it should be cheapened by plastic, rubber, and space-age polymers. I think I like the gods to be more inscrutable and not so easily commercialized as to be purchased at Wal-Mart.

Ick.

Vacation -- So Happy To Be Home

I meant to post some comments about my vacation last week, but I acquired some sort of food poisoning or something and wasn't really interested.

Short version: Fun was had. Family is, well, family.

Longer version later in the week, maybe even pictures. I promise.

Univision #1 Network for Entire Week Beating ABC, CBS, NBC, FOX and CW

Yeah, like there's anything to watch in Spanish either.

C Ya Real Soon!

Things will be a bit quieter than usual for a few days, as I'm flying to the Left Coast to spend a few days in HELL.A. On the up side, I get to spend three days at the DisneyLand resort and have at least one fabulous meal. On the down side, I have to spend it with side of my family that causes me the most stress -- my own. After that I get to spend another couple of days in the middle of nowhere (seriously, the nearest movie theater is an hour away!) with my poor dear Grams, who just hasn't been the same since her stroke more than a year ago. Also, T gets to stay here to take care of the kitties, and I'll miss him awfully. I trust he'll watch plenty of Ninja Warrior.

So, I will be back soon with Tales from the Flip Side.

If you have any spare karma, send it westward. I could use just a wee bit less stress. At this point, I just want to get there with no trauma.

Squee!, Part 2

Look! Wee baby fuzzies!

Squee!

It's here! It's here! Finally, at long last, it's here.

Branagh's Hamlet has been finally been released on DVD!

I know this movie has its detractors, but I love it. A word-for-word adaptation of what is arguably Shakespeare's greatest play on screen. I saw it during my final undergrad semester at UF, when I was, conveniently, taking a course in Shakespeare. (Oddly, Hamlet wasn't on the syllabus that semester.) Anyway, it played at the Hippodrome for a week or two, then it went away, then it came back in the summer due to popular demand. I actually paid real money to sit my considerable bottom in a movie theater seat for 4+ hours at least two, and I think three, times. I was fortunate that, at that time, I had no issues whatsoever understanding the language because I had been immersed in Chaucerian Middle English and Shakespearean "modern" English for two semesters. I probably could have spoken in iambic pentameter if I had been asked.

I love this movie!

First, the movie is absolutely gorgeous. The cinematography, the sets, the costumes, the actors: It's all just so pretty! Turn the sound off and just let the scenery be your wallpaper for a while.

Second, the acting is really quite good. Yes, Branagh-the-Director allows Branagh-the-star to be a little over-indulgent, but come on, it's Hamlet. One should be allowed to chew a little scenery. My Darling Boy is a big fan of Kate Winslet (as should all straight males), and I love her Ophelia; she's just heartbreaking in her mad scene. Charleton (Chuck!) Heston as the Player King recites the Fall of Troy with the Voice of God, and I'm spellbound. Derek Jacobi's choices as the murderous uncle are intriguing: neither ruthless nor terrified, he walks the tightrope between them with grace and skill. The biggest revelation to me is Billy Crystal. You know, that City Slickers/Fernando guy. In playing the Grave Digger, Crystal speaks the words of the Bard effortlessly. You would think he's a genuine Shakespearean actor, all trained up with the Royal Shakespeare Company. It's one of those rare moments of stunt casting that just works. Oh, and Rufus Sewell as Fortinbras? Smokin'. Hot.

Last, and in no way least, it's freakin' all of freakin' Hamlet! By William Shakespeare! Unedited! I could just close my eyes and listen to the language.

There are some failures. Ok, in my opinion, really just two.

Jack Lemmon is/was a great actor that perfectly embodies the late-mid-20th-century American male. His performance in Mamet's Glengarry Glen Ross as the latter-day Willy-Lomanish Shelley Levene is heartbreaking and riveting. He's utterly relatable as Ensign Pulver in Mr. Roberts and as Felix Unger in The Odd Couple. He should never have been allowed near Hamlet; he's clearly out of his comfort zone, and he's jarring and unconvincing.

Robin Williams is a great-ish actor, depending upon his facial hair. Unfortunately, in Hamlet, he looks like a refugee from the Emerald City. I'm usually too distracted by his appearance to pay attention to his performance. My overall impression is that he's too uncomfortable in his over-the-top costume to give a good performance. Also, I think his part would be better played by a 14-year-old page boy.

Now, all these opinions are based on opinions I formed upon seeing the movie 11 years ago. I can't wait to watch it again to see if I've changed my mind. We'll see.

Stardust: A Review

Now that life has settled back into a normal routine, at least temporarily, my Darling Boy took me to the movies yesterday to see Stardust. I have wanted to see this movie more than any other this summer, except for Pirates of the Carribean: At World’s End. As a member of the generation that grew up on The Princess Bride, I have wanted another good, quirky, romantic fantasy for many years. No, Shrek doesn’t count.

As I have rambled on at length on bill’s blog today (so sorry, bill), I love Neil Gaiman’s work. I first heard about him sometime in the early ’90s, then I found out he was a good friend of Tori Amos’, and was, in fact, the “Neil” she often mentions in her songs. (I loved early Tori in my younger “college girl” days.) I never had time to read anything he had written because I was too busy becoming too over-educated for my own good. When I finally recovered my senses and started reading for fun, I saw Gaiman’s Neverwhere at a bookstore, remembered all the good things I had heard, and picked it up. I’ve been a devoted little fan girl ever since, even going so far as to purchase all ten volumes of his Sandman series of graphic novels (at $20 a pop) and the associated spin-offs and add-ons. I have not gone so far as to buy the new Absolute Sandman, but only because I haven’t entirely lost my mind.

Anyway, Stardust is the first of Gaiman’s novels to make it to the big screen, and I have been aquiver with anticipation since they started filming. This might be the most successful book-to-film adaptations I’ve ever seen, and it way out-classes the Harry Potter movies. To be clear, many of my favorite moments from the book didn’t make it into the movie, and the movie added some action sequences not found in the book. That’s ok. They are entirely separate media, and the movie remains true to the heart and soul of the book, which is the most important thing.

Some thumbnail impressions:


First, Claire Danes is absolutely luminous as Yvaine. When I first heard she had been cast in the role, I wasn’t sure if she was pretty enough for the part. She is definitely pretty enough and just marvelous in the role.

The producers of the The Pirates of the Carribean movies need to hurry up and cast Charlie Cox as Will Turner III right exactly now; he is the heir apparent to Orlando Bloom, only not quite as girly-pretty. I just figured it out: He looks like the secret love child of Robert Sean Leonard and Orlando Bloom.

Michelle Pfeiffer is perfect as Lamia. Given how great she was in The Witches of Eastwick so long ago, it’s clear she should always play witches.

The roles of Princes in the movie are worth at least half the price of admission; you'll just have to trust on on this and see for yourself.

Critics seem to be raving about Robert DeNiro’s performance, and, to be sure, he’s quite the charmer in the role of Captain Shakespeare. I, personally, would give up his scenes in exchange for more exposition about the town of Wall, the mysterious market, and the exotic visitors who come for the market. I also would have liked Una to have been released from her captivity as described in the book. You’ll just have to read the book yourself to see what I mean.




In contrast to Stardust, the first four Harry Potter movies (I’ve not seen the fifth yet) try too hard to literally translate entire sequences from the books, and, in doing so, end up without the time to really explore the heart and soul of the story. As a result, the Harry Potter movies seem more like visual Cliff’s Notes of the books; they look great, but the deeper points of the stories are somehow lost.

So, anyway, if you want to see a good old fashioned romantic adventure with a heart, go see Stardust. Preferably with someone who makes you glow inside.

When you've done that, go buy the graphc novel for another tasty treat. If the movie is like a really good chocolate chip cookie, then the graphic novel is like a great chocolate chip cookie with butterscotch chips and vanilla ice cream. (The non-illustrated novel is a really good chocolate chip cookie with fewer chocolate and butterscotch chips and no ice cream.)

Please send good vibes

Icepick/T/my Darling Boy's mom is being admitted to the hospital with an undiagnosed infection and abdominal pain (appendicitis is one possibility). If you have any to spare, please send prayers/positive thoughts/good vibrations toward Orlando. She's almost 80, so we're concerned.

Thanks. I'll try to update later.

UPDATE on T's blog here.

There Goes My Street Cred

As a follow up, I took the below referenced "Sublime Philosophical Crap Test", and my results are below.

Let me just say "Huh?" I'm pretty sure this wasn't covered in my Intro to Philosophy class in Junior College.

Your Score: R-A-O

You scored 44% Non-Reductionism, 88% Epistemological Absolutism, and 55% Moral Objectivism!

You are an R-A-O: a metaphysical Reductionist, an epistemological Absolutist, and a moral Objectivist. What does this all mean? Well, keep reading to find out.

Metaphysics: Reductionism (Monism or Positivism) In metaphysics, my test measures your tendency towards Reductionism or Non-Reductionism. As a Reductionist, you like to cut away the metaphysical fat as opposed to multiplying concepts and entities like so many baby rabbits. The two broad categories of Reductionists that my test recognizes are Monists and Positivists.

1. Monists do not cut away the metaphysical fat so much as they just put the meat into a grinder and synthesize the fat into the meat. They tend to condense particular things and ideas into a Unity or Absolute, in other words. If you believe that reality is ultimately a unity and that mind and matter both exist but are simply two different ways of looking at the same substance, then you are a neutral monist in the sense of Spinoza. If you believe that reality is ultimately an Absolute because a whole is more than just the sum of its parts, proven by the fact that we can never have knowledge of a particular thing unless we also grasp its relations to the ultimate Absolute or whole of reality with which it is bound up, and if you feel that this Absolute is characterized by Spirit or Mind, and not matter, then you share the same views as Hegel and even Plato to a degree. A monist--because he or she believes that reality is a Unity or Absolute--tends to synthesize all particulars into universals, deny the reality of matter (Hegel) or mind (Spinoza, sort of), and so on. These concepts are all cast into the meat grinder and come out as a unified whole. Famous monists include philosophers such as Hegel, Spinoza, and Parmenides.

If none of the above sounded like you, then you are most definitely the other type of Reductionist. 2. Positivists, unlike monists, do not synthesize two apparently competing views into one--instead, they do away with one of the views, that being the one that cannot be empirically verified. A positivist, then, cuts away the metaphysical fat as meaningless conjecture about nothing in particular. He relies primarily on a tool called Ockham's Razor to shave away these ideas. Ockham's Razor states that we should do away with any hypotheses that needlessly multiply explanatory entities. For instance, in regards to the dispute about the existence of universals, a positivist tends to adopt the position of nominalism--which is the belief that only particulars are real. A universal is only a linguistic construction we use to put particulars into groups--meaning we can reduce all universals to the sum of their parts, that being particulars. After all, we can never have empirical experience of "whiteness", only particular things that are white--nor have we ever observed the universal "mankind", though we can observe individual men. On the mind-body problem, a positivist will be likely to do away with the concept of "mind", reducing it to a material product of our brain functioning. This position is often referred to as the Identity-Theory, because it equates mental states to states of the brain. Clearly, a positivist tends towards a materialistic outlook. Positivism will also revile any idealist conception of reality, which maintains that the world of experience and perception is merely a phenomenal world, whereas the "real" world lies underneath experience and is fundamentally unknowable. A positivist will tend to do away with the idealist hypothesis as needless and unverifiable. Well-known positivists include Carnap, Ayer, and Wittgenstein.

*****

Epistemology: Absolutism (Rationalism or Pragmatism) My test measures one's tendency towards Absolutism or Skepticism in regards to epistemology. As an Absolutist, you believe that objective knowledge is possible given the right approach, and you deny the claims of skeptical philosophers who insist that we can never have knowledge of ultimate reality. The two types of Absolutists recognized by my test are Rationalists and Pragmatists.

1. Rationalists believe that the use of reason ultimately provides the best route to truth. A rationalist usually defines truth as a correspondence between propositions and reality, taking the common-sense route. Also, rationalists tend to believe that knowledge of reality is made possible through certain foundational beliefs. This stance is known as foundationalism. A foundationalist believes that, because we cannot justify the truth of every statement in an infinite regress, we ultimately reach a foundation of knowledge. This foundation is composed of a priori truths, like mathematics and logic, as well as undoubtable truths like one's belief in his or her own existence. The belief that experiences and memories are veridical is also part of the foundation. Thus, for a rationalist knowledge of reality is made possible through our foundational beliefs, which we do not need to justify because we find them to be undoubtable and self-evident. In regards to science, a rationalist will tend to emphasize the foundational assumptions of scientific inquiry as prior to and more important than scientific inquiry itself. If science does lead to truth, it is only because it is based upon the assumption of certain rational principles such as "Every event is caused" and "The future will resemble the past". Philosophy has a wide representation of philosophical rationalists--Descartes, Spinoza, Liebniz, and many others.

If that didn't sound like your own views, then you are most likely the other type of Absolutist: the Pragmatist. 2. Epistemological Pragmatists are fundamentally identified by their definition of truth. Truth is, on this view, merely a measure of a proposition's success in inquiry. This view is a strictly scientific notion of truth. A proposition can be called true if it leads to successful predictions or coheres best with the observed facts about the world. Thus, for the pragmatist, knowledge of reality is possible through scientific reasoning. A pragmatist emphasizes man's fallibility, and hence takes baby-steps towards knowledge through scientific methodology. Any truth claim for a pragmatist is open to revision and subject to change--if empirical observations lead us to call even logical rules into question (like quantum physics has done for the law of the excluded middle), then we can and should abandon even these supposed a priori and "absolutely certain" logical rules if they do not accord with our testing and refuting of our various propositions. As a consequence of this, a pragmatist doesn't feel that scientific knowledge is based upon unfounded assumptions that are taken to be true without any sort of justification--rather, they believe that the successes of scientific inquiry have proved that its assumptions are well-founded. For instance, the assumption of science that the future will be like the past is adequately shown by the amazing success of scientific theories in predicting future events--how else could this be possible unless the assumption were true? Pragmatism borrows elements from realism and yet attempts to account for the critiques made by skeptics and relativists. It is essentially a type of philosophical opportunism--it borrows the best stances from a large number of philosophical systems and attempts to discard the problems of these systems by combining them with others. Famous pragmatists of this type are Peirce and Dewey.

*****

Ethics: Objectivism (Deontology or Logical Positivism) In Ethics, my test measures your tendency towards moral Objectivism or moral Relativism. As a moral Objectivist, you are opposed to Subjectivist moral theories and believe that morality applies to people universally and actually describes objects and situations out in the world as opposed to just subjects themselves. The two types of moral Objectivists my test recognizes are Kantian Deontologists and Utilitarians.

1. Kantian Deontologists believe that the one intrinsic good is a good will. As rational beings capable of making decisions, the moral worth of our decisions is ultimately derived from the intentions behind our actions, not their consequences. A moral being does the right thing not out of recognition of any consequences, but out of a sense of moral duty. For Kant, a good will is the ultimate good because to deny the will is to deny the one thing that makes us rational, moral beings. If an act will accord with or further our status as free, rational beings, and it is possible to will the universalization of such a moral principle without infringing upon our good wills, then an act is good. Kant's categorical imperative provides an objective standard to judge moral worth--it is not hypothetical in the sense of other imperatives, which hide a latent if-clause. For instance, "Eating razors is good" is good ONLY if you tack on an if-clause that says something like: "If you wish to destroy your gums." Thus, the categorical imperative is good, not just IF something is the case, but in ALL cases. It requires people to treat others as ends, and not means to ends, for to treat everyone as a means to an ends would be to deny them their ability to function as rational, free beings--which is what makes morality possible in the first place. The major propnent of this view in the history of philosophy is, quite obviously, Kant.

If that didn't sound like your position, then you are probably the other variety of moral Objectivist--the Utilitarian. 2. Utilitarians define "happiness" or "pleasure" as the sole intrinsic good, and the principle "The greatest pleasure for the greatest number" best reflects a Utilitarian view of ethics. Utilitarianism is a consequentialist moral theory, meaning the consequences of an action--not the intentions behind it--determine the act's moral worth. Even if you intended to do great evil with a certain act, if the act produces a net gain of pleasure and happiness for the greatest number, then it was indeed a good act because your intentions weren't realized. What matters in this scenario, obviously, is the consequences of the act. Utilitarianism, of course, can also be reduced to Hedonism. If you do not feel that the greatest happiness of the greatest number matters, but only pay heed to the greatest happiness of individuals, then you are more adequately classified as a Hedonist. But both Utilitarians and Hedonists define "pleasure" as an intrinsic good and determine the moral worth of an act through its consequences. The only difference is whether we measure the collective pleasure of a group or only an individual's pleasure. Prominent Utilitarians include Bentham and Mill.

*****

As you can see, when your philosophical position is narrowed down there are so many potential categories that an OKCupid test cannot account for them all. But, taken as very broad categories or philosophical styles, you are best characterized as an R-A-O. Your exact philosophical opposite would be an N-S-R.

About the Author

Saint_gasoline is a crazed madman who spends all of his time writing OKCupid tests and ranting about philosophy and science. If you are interested in reading more of his insane ramblings, or seeing his deliciously trite webcomic, go to SaintGasoline.com.

Link: The Sublime Philosophical Crap Test written by saint_gasoline on OkCupid, home of the The Dating Persona Test

Yeah, that sounds right

I bring you The Personality Defect Test, by way of my Darling Boy. If you were to realize just how appropriate our results are, you would know beyond all doubt that we are a pretty unbearable pair. How other people stand being around us, I'll never know.

Your Score: Haughty Intellectual

You are 57% Rational, 0% Extroverted, 28% Brutal, and 71% Arrogant.

You are the Haughty Intellectual. You are a very rational person, emphasizing logic over emotion, and you are also rather arrogant and self-aggrandizing. You probably think of yourself as an intellectual, and you would like everyone to know it. Not only that, but you also tend to look down on others, thinking yourself better than them. You could possibly have an unhealthy obsession with yourself as well, thus causing everyone to hate you for being such an elitist twat. On top of all that, you are also introverted and gentle. This means that you are just a quiet thinker who wants fame and recognition, in all likelihood. Like so many countless pseudo-intellectuals swarming around vacuous internet forums to discuss worthless political issues, your kind is a scourge upon humanity, blathering and blathering on and on about all kinds of boring crap. If your personality could be sculpted, the resulting piece would be Rodin's "The Thinker"--although I am absolutely positive that you are not nearly as muscular or naked as that statue. Rather lacking in emotion, introspective, gentle, and arrogant, you are most certainly a Haughty Intellectual! And, most likely, you will never achieve the recognition or fame you so desire! But no worries!

To put it less negatively:

1. You are more RATIONAL than intuitive.

2. You are more INTROVERTED than extroverted.

3. You are more GENTLE than brutal.

4. You are more ARROGANT than humble.

Compatibility:

Your exact opposite is the Schoolyard Bully. (Bullies like to beat up nerds, after all.)

Other personalities you would probably get along with are the Braggart, the Hand-Raiser, and the Robot.

*

*

If you scored near fifty percent for a certain trait (42%-58%), you could very well go either way. For example, someone with 42% Extroversion is slightly leaning towards being an introvert, but is close enough to being an extrovert to be classified that way as well. Below is a list of the other personality types so that you can determine which other possible categories you may fill if you scored near fifty percent for certain traits.

The other personality types:

The Emo Kid: Intuitive, Introverted, Gentle, Humble.

The Starving Artist: Intuitive, Introverted, Gentle, Arrogant.

The Bitch-Slap: Intuitive, Introverted, Brutal, Humble.

The Brute: Intuitive, Introverted, Brutal, Arrogant.

The Hippie: Intuitive, Extroverted, Gentle, Humble.

The Televangelist: Intuitive, Extroverted, Gentle, Arrogant.

The Schoolyard Bully: Intuitive, Extroverted, Brutal, Humble.

The Class Clown: Intuitive, Extroverted, Brutal, Arrogant.

The Robot: Rational, Introverted, Gentle, Humble.

The Haughty Intellectual: Rational, Introverted, Gentle, Arrogant.

The Spiteful Loner: Rational, Introverted, Brutal, Humble.

The Sociopath: Rational, Introverted, Brutal, Arrogant.

The Hand-Raiser: Rational, Extroverted, Gentle, Humble.

The Braggart: Rational, Extroverted, Gentle, Arrogant.

The Capitalist Pig: Rational, Extroverted, Brutal, Humble.

The Smartass: Rational, Extroverted, Brutal, Arrogant.

Be sure to take my Sublime Philosophical Crap Test if you are interested in taking a slightly more intellectual test that has just as many insane ramblings as this one does!

About Saint_Gasoline

I am a self-proclaimed pseudo-intellectual who loves dashes. I enjoy science, philosophy, and fart jokes and water balloons, not necessarily in that order. I spend 95% of my time online, and the other 5% of my time in the bathroom, longing to get back on the computer. If, God forbid, you somehow find me amusing instead of crass and annoying, be sure to check out my blog and my webcomic at SaintGasoline.com.

Link: The Personality Defect Test written by saint_gasoline on OkCupid Free Online Dating, home of the The Dating Persona Test