So, on Sunday, I talked about how I was trying to get Google to verify my page.
They didn't.
(Soft sobbing).
Ok, but I can deal with that. I don't need Google to have me verify my blog.It's seachable. You look up flow of conscious and you'll find it. Eventually.
Off that.
In the pros columnn, Google Adsense has verified my blog. And, my hitcounter is up and running. And I am reading Catch-22, the most unsensical piece of literature I have ever read, with the possible exception of Slaughterhouse Five.
So, that's it. Nothing really happened. Not too emotional about anything, just sort of ambivalent about everything.
Damn, I'm bored.
Tuesday, January 27, 2009
Sunday, January 25, 2009
Verifying this Blog with F*cking Google
So for the past month or so, I have been trying to make my blog a little more tech savvy, by which I mean, adding hit counters just to see how many people actually read this piece of sh*t that I post on every once in a while, and putting it in Google's search results. I began trying to do the first when I started to wonder how many people visit this thing and if my periodical "I'm sorry for not posting and I have no good reason, but things will change and I'll post more often."
Then I don't. I continue to post sporadically and you're lucky if you get one or two posts out of me in a month, if that. That's not right.
Now, before I go on, let me tell you that this is not going to be one of the type of posts that I hate to write, and that I vowed to write no longer in this post. Having said that . . .
I have spent the entire morning, and some of the afternoon trying to get Google to verify my URL. I went through the entire Blogger menu until I found an area where there was HTML. Then I pasted the META tag into the code after <head>and before <body> in about ten different places fifteen different times, and saved, and kept clicking verify at least twenty times, and it wasn't until the sixteenth saving that I realized that every time I saved, Blogger's thing, whatever it's called, kept rearranging the META tag, and deleting bits so that instead of <meta name="verify-v1" content="/vhyFkWM72jhoxokObT3sZezIXN/a51Ag0+GZGbh9iA=" /> saving, it saves as <meta content='/vhyFkWM72jhoxokObT3sZezIXN/a51Ag0+GZGbh9iA=' name='verify-v1'/>, which doesn't look that different, but it is.
I realize that the previous paragraph must have been a little incomprehensible to those of you who are not tech savvy, but hang with me here and just accept the fact that this is very annoying. Think of it as . . . you're writing something in Word and an idea strikes you, so you open up the Find thing and search for the place you wanted to edit. But you can't find the place with find, so you scroll through and it turns out that in the place of the phrase that you wrote, "the woman put on the shirt," the computer replaced it with, "the lady put on the shirt." Grammatically identical, but not the phrase you put in, and not what you were looking for, and you didn't change it. Annoying, isn't it? No? Well, I don't care, it is to me.
So, once I saw this, I stopped trolling through the Blogger template code (which is way too long) and went back to the Google URL register page and clicked the other option, Upload an HTML file. Then I stopped for a moment and thought.
Hmmmm, thought I. The way I usually post, I do everything through Blogger's website. I can't upload an HTML file to my blog. (Because an HMTL file is the internet's equivalent to a text file and Blogger only allows you to upload video and picture). But then I remembered that my computer is a Vista, and if I click the option to start a new Word document, the computer gives me a choice between starting a plain Word document and starting a new blog post. And coincidentally, (well, not really, but whatever) a few months ago, I had set up this option so that, were I to start a blog post with Word, once I finished, I would just have to save it and the computer would upload it to Blogger for me!
Whatever, I'm writing this thing and you're reading, so it is cool.
I went to Blogger help and did a hit counter search and found a few good results. I clicked on the first one, which was – guess what? – Google. Google Analytics, to be precise. I clicked on that one, registered, and once again, guess what? They wanted me to add more stuff to my HTML code. So, because this was pretty early in the morning, not far along my journey to get Google to verify that I did in fact own my URL, I added it as well. But, unfortunately, they also refused to acknowledge that I had posted anything in the template code, so I got off that site, and registered with another one, that gave me actual instructions on how to add their code to my page! I mean, it was as if Google believes that if two guys can start a world spanning, globally recognized company with a ridiculously high stock price in their f*cking garage, the least someone like me, who has written HTML code exactly once, in a long episode two or three years ago, who can barely remember any of it, should be able to hack Blogger's servers (for that is what it seems is necessary to alter my blog's HTML code in the way that I want), which, let me mention, are also owned by Google, and add their f*cking hit count style code to my blog.
So, the resolution of the hit count episode was a happy one, but the URL verification one goes on yet. It remains to be seen if this will have a happy ending, or a horrible one, where I rave and rant at my computer, but stop shy of actually damaging it, for then what would I do?
I don't know. Probably read Ian McEwan and Ayn Rand.
And the previous line would have been a great one to end this post at, but I am afraid to stop writing, should this scheme of mine not work, and Google continue to not verify my URL, which would piss me off immensely, not that you couldn't have garnered that from the previous one thousand, seventy six words, that I assume you read, instead of skipping down to this point.
Because that would be immensely irritating, as well as an indicator of poor upbringing, and would compel me to hunt you down through your IP address (which is also given to me by the hit counter that isn't Google) with a deer rifle, and perhaps kill you, perhaps, just wave it around and look frightening. Either way, I can assure you, you would not enjoy it.
And I am certain that you would never skip to the end again.
Monday, January 19, 2009
The matrix
Found a funny movie on youTube today. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=InqbFW1KkUU. If anybody reads this thing, watch it.
Friday, January 2, 2009
#43, George Bush
So it's January 2nd and I think it's particularly apt that I have begun to read a book on the presidency of our forty third president. It's not, as far as I can tell, this partisan bullsh*t about how Bush was a great man whom we should all idolize like a f*cking God, becasue a book like that would sell almost no copies. No, it more describes the man, a tempermental person who likes to win. He is a man who loved education and how the much vilified "No Child Left Behind Act" was started with the best will in the world. It describes how stuff happened to him during his presidency, like Katrina, 9/11 and other stuff. It recalls how you loved him, America, right after 9/11, and he had an approval rating in the 90's, which allowed him to start a war that his analysts said would last for at least five years.
So what happened?
Well, Bush is no FDR. He's not Lincoln. He doesn't possess the type of charisma that those men had that enabled them to rally people behind them for immensely bloody wars. He didn't have FDR's allure, FDR's charm, that thing that allowed him to get the people to elect him for four terms. Don't misunderstand me, Bush is charismatic. He is one of those people that can walk into a room full of strangers for a party and walk out with every single one of them his friends. But that's in person. That type of charisma is walking up to person, saying, "Hello, my name is George W. Bush." It's fine if you have that type of charisma, in fact, many people wish they did. But FDR had something where he could look into a camera and start talking and people would agree with him. Bush doesn't have that. He only got us into Iraq and Afghanistan because we were feeling very patriotic after 9/11, and he used that patriotism, not in a malicious way, but he did use it. He felt as patriotic as the rest of us, but he saw an opportunity to use that patriotism to start a war with Afghanistan and Iraq. The former he knew was the base for Al Qaeda, but he wanted to attack the latter to get Saddam Hussein, whom he had a grudge against.
I haven't gotten up to Katrina yet, but when I do, I will keep you informed. So, I leave you with this: George Bush is human. He's a good person at heart trying to do the best he can. He just isn't very smart. Think about that. Now, let's hope the FBI doesn't get me like her.
So what happened?
Well, Bush is no FDR. He's not Lincoln. He doesn't possess the type of charisma that those men had that enabled them to rally people behind them for immensely bloody wars. He didn't have FDR's allure, FDR's charm, that thing that allowed him to get the people to elect him for four terms. Don't misunderstand me, Bush is charismatic. He is one of those people that can walk into a room full of strangers for a party and walk out with every single one of them his friends. But that's in person. That type of charisma is walking up to person, saying, "Hello, my name is George W. Bush." It's fine if you have that type of charisma, in fact, many people wish they did. But FDR had something where he could look into a camera and start talking and people would agree with him. Bush doesn't have that. He only got us into Iraq and Afghanistan because we were feeling very patriotic after 9/11, and he used that patriotism, not in a malicious way, but he did use it. He felt as patriotic as the rest of us, but he saw an opportunity to use that patriotism to start a war with Afghanistan and Iraq. The former he knew was the base for Al Qaeda, but he wanted to attack the latter to get Saddam Hussein, whom he had a grudge against.
I haven't gotten up to Katrina yet, but when I do, I will keep you informed. So, I leave you with this: George Bush is human. He's a good person at heart trying to do the best he can. He just isn't very smart. Think about that. Now, let's hope the FBI doesn't get me like her.
Thursday, December 11, 2008
The Trouble with Boys
The title of this post also happens to be the title of a very good book by journalist Peg Tyre. To save all of you busy people out there the trouble of reading this book, I will write a comparatively short synopsis.
Essentially, the book describes how the women's rights movement has made it so that schools teach girl friendly curriculum. Before I go any further, let me just say that I have no problem with women's rights activists. Being a minority myself, I understand their struggle to get fair and equal education in school for their daughters.
Now that I'm through with that little sidebar, I will continue. I'm sure that all of my readers have seen the graphs detailing how girls are enrolling
more in college than boys. If not, here is a graph detailing this trend.
Please, feminists, hold up your attacks for a minute. Some of you out there must have sons in school and this must worry you at least a little bit. If it doesn't, then you're horrible f*cking parents and don't deserve to have little boys under your command. For those of you who are worried, you are worried with good cause, and you're not the only ones. Ms. Tyre is worried with you.
The main question of the book is, "How can we fix this problem without upsetting all of the feminists who worked so hard to get our dauthers equality in schools, who worked so hard to make sure that more than 50% of girls enrolled in college?"
The answer is not so simple. The book first of all points out that boys and girls learn differently. OK, we can live with that. Boys are usually more active and enjoy and get more out of hands-on learning. Girls, however, learn more with book-learning, and are less active. The book says that even if girls are bored with a particular lesson, they are more likely than a boy to just sit there and force themselves to absorb it. This is true.
And Ms. Tyre believes that schools send a negative message to boys about reading. "Boys predominantly choose books that are funny and vulgar. They think The Adventures of Captain Underpants is the funniest thing on earth. They don't want to read Little House on the Prairie! But if they bring Captain Underpants or Captain Marvel to school, many teachers will tell them those aren't classroom books. So they learn that what they like to read isn't acceptable at school. That's a negative message that sets a lot of boys back.The same goes for writing. Boys tend to write for other boys—things that are dark, funny, and gory—whereas girls tend to write for the teacher. Boys don't want to write personal narratives; they want to write about Star Wars, and teachers might not approve of that, so we're creating nonreaders and nonwriters."
About early education she says, "Over the last 10 years, parents have bought into this idea that children are receptive to academic learning at a very young age. But there's good research that says that's really bad for a lot of boys, who aren't developmentally ready yet—their fine motor skills and vocabulary develop later than girls', and they have a harder time sitting still. We think if we give them French and violin lessons early, we can plant the seeds of genius. But it doesn't work that way."
Now, can we change this uneven academic playing field, which, for the first time in hundreds of years, is slanted in the favor of girls? To quote Barack Obama, "Yes we can."
But how should we approach this problem without disenfranchising the millions of girls who have had their mothers, grandmothers, sisters, aunts, cousins and sometimes male relatives, work so hard to get them to this spot? First of all, the book says that we can instill a love of learning in boys just by hiring male teachers, or having male role models come into school and show the boys the value of education. This doesn't hurt girls, and it will get boys to see education as a valuable tool to become a police officer or a fire fighter or whatever.
If this should fail, then Ms. Tyre also advocates single sex schools. She tells the story of an all boys school in New York, which, among other problems, had a crew of feminists attacking it for being sexually discriminatory. The school was assaulted with discrimination lawsuits and shut down within five years.
She then tells the story of an all-girls school where the principal, an ardent feminist, sued the City of New York and got a verdict that allowed the school to remain open as long as the facilities remained equal. This prompted a New York branch of the 100 Black Men organization to open an all boys school of their own. The boys at this school are well dressed, well spoken and getting a college preparatory education. However, these boys have problems that carry over from their elementary and middle schools. Many of them are averse to learning, believing that being educated is a sign of weakness. Due to this belief, many of them are below grade level in reading, but the organization will not give up on this school.
So, what shall we do, then? What is the proper course of action to make sure that our sons can go to college so that they will have a fighting chance in the corporate world? What steps can we take to ensure that our daughters do not fall behind in this mad rush to narrow the gender gap?
Because the last thing we need is to hinder the progress of our daughters to bring it to an equal level with our sons and call it "success."
Essentially, the book describes how the women's rights movement has made it so that schools teach girl friendly curriculum. Before I go any further, let me just say that I have no problem with women's rights activists. Being a minority myself, I understand their struggle to get fair and equal education in school for their daughters.
Now that I'm through with that little sidebar, I will continue. I'm sure that all of my readers have seen the graphs detailing how girls are enrolling
more in college than boys. If not, here is a graph detailing this trend.Please, feminists, hold up your attacks for a minute. Some of you out there must have sons in school and this must worry you at least a little bit. If it doesn't, then you're horrible f*cking parents and don't deserve to have little boys under your command. For those of you who are worried, you are worried with good cause, and you're not the only ones. Ms. Tyre is worried with you.
The main question of the book is, "How can we fix this problem without upsetting all of the feminists who worked so hard to get our dauthers equality in schools, who worked so hard to make sure that more than 50% of girls enrolled in college?"
The answer is not so simple. The book first of all points out that boys and girls learn differently. OK, we can live with that. Boys are usually more active and enjoy and get more out of hands-on learning. Girls, however, learn more with book-learning, and are less active. The book says that even if girls are bored with a particular lesson, they are more likely than a boy to just sit there and force themselves to absorb it. This is true.
And Ms. Tyre believes that schools send a negative message to boys about reading. "Boys predominantly choose books that are funny and vulgar. They think The Adventures of Captain Underpants is the funniest thing on earth. They don't want to read Little House on the Prairie! But if they bring Captain Underpants or Captain Marvel to school, many teachers will tell them those aren't classroom books. So they learn that what they like to read isn't acceptable at school. That's a negative message that sets a lot of boys back.The same goes for writing. Boys tend to write for other boys—things that are dark, funny, and gory—whereas girls tend to write for the teacher. Boys don't want to write personal narratives; they want to write about Star Wars, and teachers might not approve of that, so we're creating nonreaders and nonwriters."
About early education she says, "Over the last 10 years, parents have bought into this idea that children are receptive to academic learning at a very young age. But there's good research that says that's really bad for a lot of boys, who aren't developmentally ready yet—their fine motor skills and vocabulary develop later than girls', and they have a harder time sitting still. We think if we give them French and violin lessons early, we can plant the seeds of genius. But it doesn't work that way."
Now, can we change this uneven academic playing field, which, for the first time in hundreds of years, is slanted in the favor of girls? To quote Barack Obama, "Yes we can."
But how should we approach this problem without disenfranchising the millions of girls who have had their mothers, grandmothers, sisters, aunts, cousins and sometimes male relatives, work so hard to get them to this spot? First of all, the book says that we can instill a love of learning in boys just by hiring male teachers, or having male role models come into school and show the boys the value of education. This doesn't hurt girls, and it will get boys to see education as a valuable tool to become a police officer or a fire fighter or whatever.
If this should fail, then Ms. Tyre also advocates single sex schools. She tells the story of an all boys school in New York, which, among other problems, had a crew of feminists attacking it for being sexually discriminatory. The school was assaulted with discrimination lawsuits and shut down within five years.
She then tells the story of an all-girls school where the principal, an ardent feminist, sued the City of New York and got a verdict that allowed the school to remain open as long as the facilities remained equal. This prompted a New York branch of the 100 Black Men organization to open an all boys school of their own. The boys at this school are well dressed, well spoken and getting a college preparatory education. However, these boys have problems that carry over from their elementary and middle schools. Many of them are averse to learning, believing that being educated is a sign of weakness. Due to this belief, many of them are below grade level in reading, but the organization will not give up on this school.
So, what shall we do, then? What is the proper course of action to make sure that our sons can go to college so that they will have a fighting chance in the corporate world? What steps can we take to ensure that our daughters do not fall behind in this mad rush to narrow the gender gap?
Because the last thing we need is to hinder the progress of our daughters to bring it to an equal level with our sons and call it "success."
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
People Agree With Everything I have Said (got that from Maddox [Also, first parenthetical insert on a sidebar thing. Woo-hoo!] [I should really stop now]).