Slashdot Mirror

How does someone who cheated on his wife and lied to a grand jury keep his job, as President of the United States, leader of the free world.

Could it have anything to do with the fact that his sex life has nothing to do with being the President? I know that it must be shocking to you to discover that a married man lied about an affair he had. That's never happened before in the history of man.

And I don't care that he lied to Ken Starr about it. Getting a blowjob from Monica Lewinsky had nothing to do with Starr's investigation into a 20 year old land deal in which Clinton lost money. The question shouldn't have been asked and I don't care that Clinton lied about it. Not all people can be pillers of virtue like many of Clinton's Republican critics.

Most of us would rather have a competent President who occasionally gets a blowjob than have the idiot we have in office now. When Clinton left office, we had a budget surplus. Since Bush's idiotic tax cuts for the rich, his war on Iraq, and wasteful government spending, we now have the largest deficit this country has ever seen. I'd rather have a President that fucks an intern rather than one who fucks the entire country.

No, sometimes a photograph can be the news.

and here is another : bill clinton takes a course on sexual faithfulness.

It's sure not going to be taught by adultering Republicans like Bob Barr, Dan Burton, Helen Chenoweth, Newt Gingrich, Henry Hyde, or Bob Livingston. They will be teaching Hypocrisy 101.

And while we're on Vietnam, where would Rage Against The Machine be without the monk setting himself on fire?
--

As an active weblogger (I'm behind GeneHack ), here's my two centavos on the issues that are being raised.

First, the name. It's done, people. We (the people doing the weblogging) call them weblogs. There might be a temporary confusion with web server logs, but that will pass. Soon, people will realize that weblog != web server log.

Second, the point. I weblog (it's a noun! it's a verb!) mostly for myself. I comment on biological issues and anything else I find interesting; the key word being comment. Some weblogs just post pointers to interesting sites; personally I find those less interesting than those that post commentary, either on events or content elsewhere on the web. Additionally, sometimes I'll put an item up on GeneHack so that I remember to look at it again; my archives serve as a log of what I thought was worth saving. On a weblogger-heavy mailing list I frequent, weblogs were described as "bookmarks in time" by Brigitte Eaton, who runs the eatonweb weblog . That's a good capsule summary of what I'm trying to do.

Third, the community issue. I agree that weblogs aren't a good way to generate a community, at least not a large or tightly-knit one. That's not the point. Filtering content is the point; commenting on that content is the point; being active on the web instead of passively grazing is the point. I don't participate in much of the web-based community stuff, like /., for example, because (despite recent innovations) the signal:noise ratio is still way too low. People who email me because of something on GeneHack are much more reasonable to deal with. People who I mail because of items on their weblogs are much more reasonable to deal with. That's much, much more rare on /. and other such sites.

Fourth, and finally, why I read weblogs. The filtering by different people with different tastes and different backgrounds. By checking 10 or 15 sites daily, I'm able to assimilate way more information than I would be able to all on my own, with a good slice of commentary thrown in. After visiting different sites for a short while, I have a fairly good idea of the viewpoints and interests of the authors; I have an idea of how they filter information. Weblogs allow me to get the point of view of smart people in varied fields; more people than I could reasonably meet and interact with in meat space. I find that valuable.

Whew! If you made it to the end of this ramble, congradulations. If you haven't yet, check out some of the sites mentioned in the article. Visit for a few days; find the sites you like. We're a varied lot, and there's something for everyone. If you can't find a site with your point of view, start your own...that's the point.

john.

As an active weblogger (I'm behind GeneHack ), here's my two centavos on the issues that are being raised.

First, the name. It's done, people. We (the people doing the weblogging) call them weblogs. There might be a temporary confusion with web server logs, but that will pass. Soon, people will realize that weblog != web server log.

Second, the point. I weblog (it's a noun! it's a verb!) mostly for myself. I comment on biological issues and anything else I find interesting; the key word being comment. Some weblogs just post pointers to interesting sites; personally I find those less interesting than those that post commentary, either on events or content elsewhere on the web. Additionally, sometimes I'll put an item up on GeneHack so that I remember to look at it again; my archives serve as a log of what I thought was worth saving. On a weblogger-heavy mailing list I frequent, weblogs were described as "bookmarks in time" by Brigitte Eaton, who runs the eatonweb weblog . That's a good capsule summary of what I'm trying to do.

Third, the community issue. I agree that weblogs aren't a good way to generate a community, at least not a large or tightly-knit one. That's not the point. Filtering content is the point; commenting on that content is the point; being active on the web instead of passively grazing is the point. I don't participate in much of the web-based community stuff, like /., for example, because (despite recent innovations) the signal:noise ratio is still way too low. People who email me because of something on GeneHack are much more reasonable to deal with. People who I mail because of items on their weblogs are much more reasonable to deal with. That's much, much more rare on /. and other such sites.

Fourth, and finally, why I read weblogs. The filtering by different people with different tastes and different backgrounds. By checking 10 or 15 sites daily, I'm able to assimilate way more information than I would be able to all on my own, with a good slice of commentary thrown in. After visiting different sites for a short while, I have a fairly good idea of the viewpoints and interests of the authors; I have an idea of how they filter information. Weblogs allow me to get the point of view of smart people in varied fields; more people than I could reasonably meet and interact with in meat space. I find that valuable.

Whew! If you made it to the end of this ramble, congradulations. If you haven't yet, check out some of the sites mentioned in the article. Visit for a few days; find the sites you like. We're a varied lot, and there's something for everyone. If you can't find a site with your point of view, start your own...that's the point.

john.

As an active weblogger (I'm behind GeneHack ), here's my two centavos on the issues that are being raised.

First, the name. It's done, people. We (the people doing the weblogging) call them weblogs. There might be a temporary confusion with web server logs, but that will pass. Soon, people will realize that weblog != web server log.

Second, the point. I weblog (it's a noun! it's a verb!) mostly for myself. I comment on biological issues and anything else I find interesting; the key word being comment. Some weblogs just post pointers to interesting sites; personally I find those less interesting than those that post commentary, either on events or content elsewhere on the web. Additionally, sometimes I'll put an item up on GeneHack so that I remember to look at it again; my archives serve as a log of what I thought was worth saving. On a weblogger-heavy mailing list I frequent, weblogs were described as "bookmarks in time" by Brigitte Eaton, who runs the eatonweb weblog . That's a good capsule summary of what I'm trying to do.

Third, the community issue. I agree that weblogs aren't a good way to generate a community, at least not a large or tightly-knit one. That's not the point. Filtering content is the point; commenting on that content is the point; being active on the web instead of passively grazing is the point. I don't participate in much of the web-based community stuff, like /., for example, because (despite recent innovations) the signal:noise ratio is still way too low. People who email me because of something on GeneHack are much more reasonable to deal with. People who I mail because of items on their weblogs are much more reasonable to deal with. That's much, much more rare on /. and other such sites.

Fourth, and finally, why I read weblogs. The filtering by different people with different tastes and different backgrounds. By checking 10 or 15 sites daily, I'm able to assimilate way more information than I would be able to all on my own, with a good slice of commentary thrown in. After visiting different sites for a short while, I have a fairly good idea of the viewpoints and interests of the authors; I have an idea of how they filter information. Weblogs allow me to get the point of view of smart people in varied fields; more people than I could reasonably meet and interact with in meat space. I find that valuable.

Whew! If you made it to the end of this ramble, congradulations. If you haven't yet, check out some of the sites mentioned in the article. Visit for a few days; find the sites you like. We're a varied lot, and there's something for everyone. If you can't find a site with your point of view, start your own...that's the point.

john.