Westboro Baptist Church is going to come to Raleigh to picket Elizabeth Edwards' funeral. I don't know why, I don't know what it's supposed to accomplish besides getting them publicity (I think I just answered that question).
I don't know a lot about Elizabeth Edwards, she seemed nice enough, but I've heard stories about how she behaved to staffers during her husband's campaign. John Edwards is a conscienceless weasel, who only ever looked out for #1, and is probably one of the worst senators any state ever had.
Regardless of all that, WBC are a bunch of assholes, and nobody deserves to have their funeral disrupted by them.
Thursday, December 9, 2010
Wednesday, September 8, 2010
Good judgement
Today, juxtaposition of the Koran burning nutjob and politicians who protested the Ground Zero Mosque for political means.
1) The GZM protesters were not (for the most part) lighting their torches, they were exercising free speech (perhaps poorly, true).
2) The GZM builders and the Koran burner have more in common than the burner and the BZM protesters. Builders and burners are both operating completely within the law, however, they are, in least in part, if not in the whole, knowingly doing what they're doing to annoy people.
1) The GZM protesters were not (for the most part) lighting their torches, they were exercising free speech (perhaps poorly, true).
2) The GZM builders and the Koran burner have more in common than the burner and the BZM protesters. Builders and burners are both operating completely within the law, however, they are, in least in part, if not in the whole, knowingly doing what they're doing to annoy people.
Saturday, September 4, 2010
Ground Zero mosque
Well hell, every other dickhead who can hunt and peck or speak three words in a row has said something about the ground zero mosque, so why not me. Particularly regarding the Cracked article about it, which makes some good points.
http://www.cracked.com/blog/3-reasons-the-ground-zero-mosque-debate-makes-no-sense/
Specifically, point three - you can not simultaneously admit they have the legal right, and ask the government to block it. Of course. The sane people are not the ones saying this; the sane people are the ones saying they don't like it, but that it's completely legal to do, and that's what makes American great (insert flag waving here). The point is, if you're all for peace and tolerance, you could take into account how people would react. If you want to prove a point, you could at least make an attempt at recognizing the sensitivities of others; as a white male, that is apparently my purpose in life these days - to recognize the hot buttons of others.
And, I haven't seen plans, I don't know what's in the Islamic center, yes, there's probably plenty of other stuff besides the mosque, but I've seen an "Islamic Cultural Center" here locally, and it's a mosque. There are signs on the doors saying where the men and women are to enter separately, and prayer instructions. All the other stuff is great, and not related to prayer, but if there wasn't a mosque, there wouldn't be any of that other stuff either.
But in case I wasn't clear - the rules are clear, if they are followed, build the dang building, whatever it is. But don't go changing the dang rules to screw with it.
Next lecture (get your reading done in advance) - Bills of Attainder.
http://www.cracked.com/blog/3-reasons-the-ground-zero-mosque-debate-makes-no-sense/
Specifically, point three - you can not simultaneously admit they have the legal right, and ask the government to block it. Of course. The sane people are not the ones saying this; the sane people are the ones saying they don't like it, but that it's completely legal to do, and that's what makes American great (insert flag waving here). The point is, if you're all for peace and tolerance, you could take into account how people would react. If you want to prove a point, you could at least make an attempt at recognizing the sensitivities of others; as a white male, that is apparently my purpose in life these days - to recognize the hot buttons of others.
And, I haven't seen plans, I don't know what's in the Islamic center, yes, there's probably plenty of other stuff besides the mosque, but I've seen an "Islamic Cultural Center" here locally, and it's a mosque. There are signs on the doors saying where the men and women are to enter separately, and prayer instructions. All the other stuff is great, and not related to prayer, but if there wasn't a mosque, there wouldn't be any of that other stuff either.
But in case I wasn't clear - the rules are clear, if they are followed, build the dang building, whatever it is. But don't go changing the dang rules to screw with it.
Next lecture (get your reading done in advance) - Bills of Attainder.
Friday, September 3, 2010
Sphincters
http://www.cnn.com/2010/WORLD/meast/08/31/west.bank.shooting/index.html?iref=allsearch
So, Hamas claimed responsibility for shooting four Israeli civilians in the West Bank. Every report on this makes sure to point out that one of the victims was pregnant in the first sentence, because it's such a great lead.
Following that, there was some sort of celebratory riot of 3000 people in the Gaza strip. This happened on Tuesday the 1st, and I didn't hear about it until today, Friday the 3rd, on someone's blog. Either this isn't news anymore because its happened too often, or no one wants to pick on Hamas. One response also indicated that that poster had not heard about it before, and only found a blog reference to it. Leaving aside that person's apparent complete ineptitude at web searches, a few comments. The Blogger took the position that the celebrators were the scum of the earth, less than human, etc. ALL of the respondents (six at that point) took him to task, pointing out how oppressed and suffering the Gazans are, and how the US military keeps killing civilians all the time, so how dare he complain.
Well, as far as I understand, the suffering people in Gaza brought it on themselves, and continue to bring it on themselves, and the rest of the middle east wants them to keep bringing it on themselves. But that's not really what I want to talk about.
Second, the US military does try to not deliberately target civilians. Especially women walking down a public street in broad daylight. And when things like that happen, and they do, nobody feels good about it, and certainly doesn't celebrate it like a great military victory, bringing me to my next point -
You killed FOUR unarmed civilians, and treat it like winning the Battle of the Bulge? How fucking petty and stupid are you? You are small assholes, with small minds, and this is why people hate you. This was not a victory, this was not useful, and all you are doing by celebrating is publicly showing how stupid you are. Bringing me to my real point -
The protesters may be hoping for martyrdom (possibly many are), but they're also demonstrating, and probably even counting on, the moral superiority and restraint of the people they hate so much. 3000 people just went out and identified themselves as some of the biggest Israel haters in existence, essentially painting a huge fucking bullseye on themselves. The IDF could have wiped them all off the face of the earth in about 2 minutes, with almost no collateral damage. But didn't. Yes, if Israel had done that, they would have gotten all the international condemnation that Hamas doesn't, but over and over again, Israel has shown astounding restraint with people who, over and over again, profess that they want every Jew to die. Would Hamas avoid a big juicy target of 3000 undefended Israelis milling around shouting about how much they hate Palestinians? I doubt it.
I see this shit over and over. Angry protesters scream bloody murder and call the targets of their vitriol monsters, killers, and everything else - knowing that there is almost no chance of retribution. Yell at the government, yell at the police, yell at all the institutions that have the guns, and yet, no one gets shot. The fact that the screamers know that they can get away with it means that they know that their targets are not really soulless, heartless, inhuman killers, or else they'd be dead.
Look around. Who are the groups that no one criticizes, or gets warned off that they'll get themselves in deep if they do? (And don't say there aren't any, we all know some.) The groups that actually respond with retribution or violence to criticism. Who really needs to be criticized to change their ways? People who react violently to those who are different or disagree. Israeli politicians get assassinated for opposing Hamas, but when they had the chance to squish Arafat, they let him go. Who looks like the better people in this picture.
Anyway, one last peripheral thing. In thinking about these Assholes, I was thinking about what to call them in more polite places than here. I thought of orifices, which is decent, and sphincters, which is the "polite" euphemism that I've heard the most, but then something occurred to me. A sphincter is a ring of muscle with the task of keeping something under control. The pyloric sphincter controls when food moves out of the stomach. The rectal sphincter (asshole) controls when shit comes out. That is exactly what these people are not. They have no control, and shit flies everywhere around them. Those words are too good for them, so I will start calling them cloacas, which is what birds and frogs have. The cloaca has no real sphincter or asshole, and the shit just comes out whenever it's there. That's what those people are.
So, Hamas claimed responsibility for shooting four Israeli civilians in the West Bank. Every report on this makes sure to point out that one of the victims was pregnant in the first sentence, because it's such a great lead.
Following that, there was some sort of celebratory riot of 3000 people in the Gaza strip. This happened on Tuesday the 1st, and I didn't hear about it until today, Friday the 3rd, on someone's blog. Either this isn't news anymore because its happened too often, or no one wants to pick on Hamas. One response also indicated that that poster had not heard about it before, and only found a blog reference to it. Leaving aside that person's apparent complete ineptitude at web searches, a few comments. The Blogger took the position that the celebrators were the scum of the earth, less than human, etc. ALL of the respondents (six at that point) took him to task, pointing out how oppressed and suffering the Gazans are, and how the US military keeps killing civilians all the time, so how dare he complain.
Well, as far as I understand, the suffering people in Gaza brought it on themselves, and continue to bring it on themselves, and the rest of the middle east wants them to keep bringing it on themselves. But that's not really what I want to talk about.
Second, the US military does try to not deliberately target civilians. Especially women walking down a public street in broad daylight. And when things like that happen, and they do, nobody feels good about it, and certainly doesn't celebrate it like a great military victory, bringing me to my next point -
You killed FOUR unarmed civilians, and treat it like winning the Battle of the Bulge? How fucking petty and stupid are you? You are small assholes, with small minds, and this is why people hate you. This was not a victory, this was not useful, and all you are doing by celebrating is publicly showing how stupid you are. Bringing me to my real point -
The protesters may be hoping for martyrdom (possibly many are), but they're also demonstrating, and probably even counting on, the moral superiority and restraint of the people they hate so much. 3000 people just went out and identified themselves as some of the biggest Israel haters in existence, essentially painting a huge fucking bullseye on themselves. The IDF could have wiped them all off the face of the earth in about 2 minutes, with almost no collateral damage. But didn't. Yes, if Israel had done that, they would have gotten all the international condemnation that Hamas doesn't, but over and over again, Israel has shown astounding restraint with people who, over and over again, profess that they want every Jew to die. Would Hamas avoid a big juicy target of 3000 undefended Israelis milling around shouting about how much they hate Palestinians? I doubt it.
I see this shit over and over. Angry protesters scream bloody murder and call the targets of their vitriol monsters, killers, and everything else - knowing that there is almost no chance of retribution. Yell at the government, yell at the police, yell at all the institutions that have the guns, and yet, no one gets shot. The fact that the screamers know that they can get away with it means that they know that their targets are not really soulless, heartless, inhuman killers, or else they'd be dead.
Look around. Who are the groups that no one criticizes, or gets warned off that they'll get themselves in deep if they do? (And don't say there aren't any, we all know some.) The groups that actually respond with retribution or violence to criticism. Who really needs to be criticized to change their ways? People who react violently to those who are different or disagree. Israeli politicians get assassinated for opposing Hamas, but when they had the chance to squish Arafat, they let him go. Who looks like the better people in this picture.
Anyway, one last peripheral thing. In thinking about these Assholes, I was thinking about what to call them in more polite places than here. I thought of orifices, which is decent, and sphincters, which is the "polite" euphemism that I've heard the most, but then something occurred to me. A sphincter is a ring of muscle with the task of keeping something under control. The pyloric sphincter controls when food moves out of the stomach. The rectal sphincter (asshole) controls when shit comes out. That is exactly what these people are not. They have no control, and shit flies everywhere around them. Those words are too good for them, so I will start calling them cloacas, which is what birds and frogs have. The cloaca has no real sphincter or asshole, and the shit just comes out whenever it's there. That's what those people are.
Tuesday, July 6, 2010
Arizona lawsuit
The feds have filed a lawsuit against Arizona, claiming the Arizona law regarding the checking of immigrant status by non-federal law enforcement is unconstitutional. The quote I heard is "only the federal government can regulate immigration".
Hmm.
If the feds win this one, it seems to me an interesting precedent shall be set. Anything that is a federal law can then only be enforced by federal agents. Two possibilities exist:
1) The feds are ignorant of this ramification, and local law enforcement agencies can then stop making arrests on anything that violates federal law, leading to the collapse.
2) The feds are exactly aware of this, want to take all power away from local law enforcement authority away, and create a national police force, which can not be funded without stealing all the money that used to be used by states and municipalities for their police forces. Then if you piss them off, they'll be able to stop arresting criminals, or use the brown shirts to take over.
Either they're acting out of ignorance or lunacy. Yay.
Hmm.
If the feds win this one, it seems to me an interesting precedent shall be set. Anything that is a federal law can then only be enforced by federal agents. Two possibilities exist:
1) The feds are ignorant of this ramification, and local law enforcement agencies can then stop making arrests on anything that violates federal law, leading to the collapse.
2) The feds are exactly aware of this, want to take all power away from local law enforcement authority away, and create a national police force, which can not be funded without stealing all the money that used to be used by states and municipalities for their police forces. Then if you piss them off, they'll be able to stop arresting criminals, or use the brown shirts to take over.
Either they're acting out of ignorance or lunacy. Yay.
Tuesday, June 22, 2010
The Facebook Jackass Signal
So, I just joined Facebook, primarily to access a page for a group I belong to. I already know lots of people doing the Facebook thing, making their silly little updates, sending their silly little messages, playing their silly little games. I was going to go on, connect to them, use the group page, and keep a low profile, so as to not be a public asshole. That didn't make it 24 hours. A politically active friend posted a comment, the Jackass Signal went off, my blood pressure jumped, and I got tunnel vision. So, I posted my own thoughts on the subject, good intentions to keep my mouth shut shot to hell.
Friday, May 14, 2010
Liberal Democrats
So, the latest parliamentary elections in the UK are over, and the fallout continues. The Liberal Democrats (heirs of the Whigs) became the last girl standing at closing time, as neither Labour nor Conservative could form a majority government without them. It appears that the Conservative party gets to take the Lib Dems home, having bought their affections with the LD drug of choice ever since the Liberals fell from grace early in the 20th century.
Not only will promising this to the Lib Dems get them in your car, the thought of it makes their underwear spontaneously fall off, and they'll let you have a 6 way with their grandparents. The reason they'll abandon all standards is because they expect to be able to kill you in your drunken post-coital stupor with the unthinking promises you made to them in order to get laid.
What's the promise? As they put it, "electoral reform". As others might put it, "election rejiggering". Having been lucky to manage 10% of parliament and other government offices, their idee fixe has been to change the rules so that they can win more elections. Well, why not? That's the typical goal of people without power - trying to get more power. If you can't get enough people to vote for you to win, the best move is to change the rules so that you can win more with the same # of votes.
IIRC, the stats say that they get about 25% of the votes, but only about 10% of the seats. They want proportionality, i.e., more seats without more votes. Once they have more power, then they can throw a wrench into the works by demanding legislation on all the issues that only get them 25% of the vote.
So, by having alleyway sex with the Lib Dems to build a coalition, the Conservatives have likely laid the groundwork to make future coalitions 1) Harder to build, and 2) More schizophrenic.
Whenever I hear the whine that there should be proportionality, and that whatever percentage of any group exists in the population should be represented in the government, I consider that the National Institute of Mental Health stats say that 26.2% of Americans 18 and older suffer from a diagnosable mental disorder in a given year. Should 26.2% of congress be mentally ill? I know, I know, they may already be that way (ha ha) but is that what you want? Perhaps the mentally ill would be better served by representatives who are informed on mental illness, sympathetic to the mentally ill, but closer to sane themselves.
How about this one. In 2009, there were 18,573 known homicides, so in 2009, 0.0088% of Americans were murderers (assuming negligible multiple murderers). The average life expectancy is about 80 years, and again, assuming only one homicide per murderer, 0.704% of Americans will kill someone in their lifetime. That means there should be three killers in the U.S. House of Representatives.
Or, in 2009, there were 1.8 million emergency department visits for assault. To be generous, let's allow the average assaulter 5 ER victims in their lifetime. That means that at some point in their life, 9.6% of Americans will attack AND hurt someone badly enough to send them to the hospital. Should 42 current representatives, 9 current senators, and 4 past/current presidents have sent someone to the hospital?
How about this one: 10.6% of surveyed adult women and 2.1% of surveyed men had experienced forced sex at some point in their lives. In addition, 25.5% of female and 41% of male victims were raped before they were 12 years old. You do the #s on how many kiddie rapists should be in government. Yes, they have been there, and they are there, but should they be entitled to be there as representatives of their group? (Actually, proportional representation may actually take their numbers down. Something worth checking into.)
Of course I'm exaggerating some things, and my calculations are certainly flawed to a degree, but I hope I make a point, and my point is:
Just about any group can claim enough members for proportional representation, but if you can't get anyone else to agree with you, you should still lose.
Not only will promising this to the Lib Dems get them in your car, the thought of it makes their underwear spontaneously fall off, and they'll let you have a 6 way with their grandparents. The reason they'll abandon all standards is because they expect to be able to kill you in your drunken post-coital stupor with the unthinking promises you made to them in order to get laid.
What's the promise? As they put it, "electoral reform". As others might put it, "election rejiggering". Having been lucky to manage 10% of parliament and other government offices, their idee fixe has been to change the rules so that they can win more elections. Well, why not? That's the typical goal of people without power - trying to get more power. If you can't get enough people to vote for you to win, the best move is to change the rules so that you can win more with the same # of votes.
IIRC, the stats say that they get about 25% of the votes, but only about 10% of the seats. They want proportionality, i.e., more seats without more votes. Once they have more power, then they can throw a wrench into the works by demanding legislation on all the issues that only get them 25% of the vote.
So, by having alleyway sex with the Lib Dems to build a coalition, the Conservatives have likely laid the groundwork to make future coalitions 1) Harder to build, and 2) More schizophrenic.
Whenever I hear the whine that there should be proportionality, and that whatever percentage of any group exists in the population should be represented in the government, I consider that the National Institute of Mental Health stats say that 26.2% of Americans 18 and older suffer from a diagnosable mental disorder in a given year. Should 26.2% of congress be mentally ill? I know, I know, they may already be that way (ha ha) but is that what you want? Perhaps the mentally ill would be better served by representatives who are informed on mental illness, sympathetic to the mentally ill, but closer to sane themselves.
How about this one. In 2009, there were 18,573 known homicides, so in 2009, 0.0088% of Americans were murderers (assuming negligible multiple murderers). The average life expectancy is about 80 years, and again, assuming only one homicide per murderer, 0.704% of Americans will kill someone in their lifetime. That means there should be three killers in the U.S. House of Representatives.
Or, in 2009, there were 1.8 million emergency department visits for assault. To be generous, let's allow the average assaulter 5 ER victims in their lifetime. That means that at some point in their life, 9.6% of Americans will attack AND hurt someone badly enough to send them to the hospital. Should 42 current representatives, 9 current senators, and 4 past/current presidents have sent someone to the hospital?
How about this one: 10.6% of surveyed adult women and 2.1% of surveyed men had experienced forced sex at some point in their lives. In addition, 25.5% of female and 41% of male victims were raped before they were 12 years old. You do the #s on how many kiddie rapists should be in government. Yes, they have been there, and they are there, but should they be entitled to be there as representatives of their group? (Actually, proportional representation may actually take their numbers down. Something worth checking into.)
Of course I'm exaggerating some things, and my calculations are certainly flawed to a degree, but I hope I make a point, and my point is:
Just about any group can claim enough members for proportional representation, but if you can't get anyone else to agree with you, you should still lose.
Sunday, March 28, 2010
OK, I saw the dragon movie
WARNING: POSSIBLE SPOILERS AND FOUL LANGUAGE AHEAD. If you're looking for a pleasant review of a kiddie movie, this isn't it.
Now, to be fair, I have now seen How to Train Your Dragon, and it would be cheap of me to not comment on it, having pre-emptively shit on it. So, what do I think of it, in a fair and impartial manner? I can't tell you, I can't be impartial about this, but I might approach fair. It's an enjoyable movie, and fun to watch, but it's garbage. It LOOKS great, but it SOUNDS awful. The dialog is worthless and the plot barely exists; when the plot does raise its sad little head, it's a ragged, ramshackle, slap-dash construct that fails miserably. The characters are threadbare, overused caricatures of 2-D copies of stereotypes of standard mythic tropes.
The story tries to make all of its hay off of the very, very tired scheme of "father who is diappointed by son he doesn't understand", "son tries to please father, but wants to do things differently than the way that things have always been done." They struggle, they conflict, they have a moment when the son succeeds, bringing them closer together, but then they realize that neither has actually changed, and they fall further apart. There's also the necessary reference to the absent mother, and how much they both miss her. Also, apparently in this world, adult vikings speak with Scottish accents, and the youths speak with modern American accents and patois.
I do not have the time or space to state every flaw, mistake, inconsistency, or incoherency in the movie, it would take longer than the movie. I will just pick on the theme that I already railed against, the theme that real movie critics have been praising - "Give peace a chance, understand other people, talking is better than fighting, make love not war" etc.
Bullshit. That's not what this movie is about. There are a couple genuine messages buried down in this movie, from where I can choose to extract them, as one pulls a functional kidney for transplant from a mangled and otherwise destroyed pile of meat that used to be a human being before the maggots burrow down to it.
The messages I get? 1) If you do not fight, you will die. Reviewers are viewing the Vikings as narrow-minded aggressors who kill the dragons because they hate them, and it takes one who thinks differently to discover the better way. That's wrong. The Vikings are struggling to survive in a hostile environment, and the depredations of the dragons would doom the Vikings if left unchecked. At the same time, the dragons are struggling to survive in a hostile environment, and if they don't take advantage of all the food they can find, they will die. Both sides are locked into fights they may not have chosen, but cannot quit, as they will be totally destroyed. This leads both sides to do increasingly risky and stupid things to stay alive.
Message two proceeds from the unresolvable conflict, to wit - 2) Brilliance is knowing when to change your approach. Sometimes doing more of the same is what is required for success, sometimes finding a new way is what it takes. I work in science, both of these approaches are needed, and knowing the difference is critical. Sticking when you shouldn't, and switching when you should have stuck will both destroy you. As seen in this movie. Both sides have intelligence, but neither is applying it effectively. The Vikings' study of dragons is limited to what it takes to kill them, and the dragons approach to life keeps sending them back to try stealing food from the same meat grinder. Either the dragons are too stupid/stubborn to recognize a losing proposition, or the Vikings are such ineffective dragon killers that it's an acceptable payout to loss scenario.
In an approach reminiscent of Enemy Mine, it takes two adversaries who fail to kill each other to figure out that they don't have to kill each other. They aren't "giving peace a chance", they just traded one scenario of no alternatives for another. They're unable to make choices, they can merely react to the situation that fate dumps on them. It's also not unlike The Forever War, in that the only contact the sides have is during combat, so that they have no way to communicate, or even ask "Why do those guys keep doing that? What is it they want?" Unfortunately, where Longyear and Haldeman have set up these scenarios in a more rational fashion to create masterful stories about more genuine characters dealing with conflict they don't want, this movie does it by accident and illogically.
I'm tired of stories that require ignorance and stupidity to hold together, as it's the application of intelligence that unravels the situation, and my question is, "Why did that take so long?"
Message 3 is a fusion of messages 1 and 2, in a pretty standard, hackneyed format for a coming of age story (at least in the pre-PC era). 3) When it's time to fight for your survival, you have put everything you've got into the fight, strength, skill, and cleverness. Go for the kill, and hold nothing back.
Finally, what really happens in this movie is not that Vikings learn to understand dragons and discover how to live in harmony. What happens is that Vikings and dragons team up to fight an even worse foe, in an incredibly brutal conflict that could have been avoided, and which is potentially genocide for the dragons. So I guess the message is, if you learn to understand your opponent, you can get them to betray their side and sow the seeds of their own destruction.
I knew someone who refused to see R-rated movies, because they refused to patronize "crap". I could not accept this thesis. Dirty words do not crap make, sex, drugs, violence, and crudity do not crap make. The same old formulas, weak characters acting stupidly, using flash to hide poor writing, and wasting the potential of the source material does crap make.
Now, to be fair, I have now seen How to Train Your Dragon, and it would be cheap of me to not comment on it, having pre-emptively shit on it. So, what do I think of it, in a fair and impartial manner? I can't tell you, I can't be impartial about this, but I might approach fair. It's an enjoyable movie, and fun to watch, but it's garbage. It LOOKS great, but it SOUNDS awful. The dialog is worthless and the plot barely exists; when the plot does raise its sad little head, it's a ragged, ramshackle, slap-dash construct that fails miserably. The characters are threadbare, overused caricatures of 2-D copies of stereotypes of standard mythic tropes.
The story tries to make all of its hay off of the very, very tired scheme of "father who is diappointed by son he doesn't understand", "son tries to please father, but wants to do things differently than the way that things have always been done." They struggle, they conflict, they have a moment when the son succeeds, bringing them closer together, but then they realize that neither has actually changed, and they fall further apart. There's also the necessary reference to the absent mother, and how much they both miss her. Also, apparently in this world, adult vikings speak with Scottish accents, and the youths speak with modern American accents and patois.
I do not have the time or space to state every flaw, mistake, inconsistency, or incoherency in the movie, it would take longer than the movie. I will just pick on the theme that I already railed against, the theme that real movie critics have been praising - "Give peace a chance, understand other people, talking is better than fighting, make love not war" etc.
Bullshit. That's not what this movie is about. There are a couple genuine messages buried down in this movie, from where I can choose to extract them, as one pulls a functional kidney for transplant from a mangled and otherwise destroyed pile of meat that used to be a human being before the maggots burrow down to it.
The messages I get? 1) If you do not fight, you will die. Reviewers are viewing the Vikings as narrow-minded aggressors who kill the dragons because they hate them, and it takes one who thinks differently to discover the better way. That's wrong. The Vikings are struggling to survive in a hostile environment, and the depredations of the dragons would doom the Vikings if left unchecked. At the same time, the dragons are struggling to survive in a hostile environment, and if they don't take advantage of all the food they can find, they will die. Both sides are locked into fights they may not have chosen, but cannot quit, as they will be totally destroyed. This leads both sides to do increasingly risky and stupid things to stay alive.
Message two proceeds from the unresolvable conflict, to wit - 2) Brilliance is knowing when to change your approach. Sometimes doing more of the same is what is required for success, sometimes finding a new way is what it takes. I work in science, both of these approaches are needed, and knowing the difference is critical. Sticking when you shouldn't, and switching when you should have stuck will both destroy you. As seen in this movie. Both sides have intelligence, but neither is applying it effectively. The Vikings' study of dragons is limited to what it takes to kill them, and the dragons approach to life keeps sending them back to try stealing food from the same meat grinder. Either the dragons are too stupid/stubborn to recognize a losing proposition, or the Vikings are such ineffective dragon killers that it's an acceptable payout to loss scenario.
In an approach reminiscent of Enemy Mine, it takes two adversaries who fail to kill each other to figure out that they don't have to kill each other. They aren't "giving peace a chance", they just traded one scenario of no alternatives for another. They're unable to make choices, they can merely react to the situation that fate dumps on them. It's also not unlike The Forever War, in that the only contact the sides have is during combat, so that they have no way to communicate, or even ask "Why do those guys keep doing that? What is it they want?" Unfortunately, where Longyear and Haldeman have set up these scenarios in a more rational fashion to create masterful stories about more genuine characters dealing with conflict they don't want, this movie does it by accident and illogically.
I'm tired of stories that require ignorance and stupidity to hold together, as it's the application of intelligence that unravels the situation, and my question is, "Why did that take so long?"
Message 3 is a fusion of messages 1 and 2, in a pretty standard, hackneyed format for a coming of age story (at least in the pre-PC era). 3) When it's time to fight for your survival, you have put everything you've got into the fight, strength, skill, and cleverness. Go for the kill, and hold nothing back.
Finally, what really happens in this movie is not that Vikings learn to understand dragons and discover how to live in harmony. What happens is that Vikings and dragons team up to fight an even worse foe, in an incredibly brutal conflict that could have been avoided, and which is potentially genocide for the dragons. So I guess the message is, if you learn to understand your opponent, you can get them to betray their side and sow the seeds of their own destruction.
I knew someone who refused to see R-rated movies, because they refused to patronize "crap". I could not accept this thesis. Dirty words do not crap make, sex, drugs, violence, and crudity do not crap make. The same old formulas, weak characters acting stupidly, using flash to hide poor writing, and wasting the potential of the source material does crap make.
Thursday, March 25, 2010
How not to make a movie about dragon training
Now, I haven't seen the movie How to Train Your Dragon yet, but that won't stop me from picking on it. Some critics are wetting themselves praising the movie for its message of tolerance, as a young Viking lad discovers that rather than killing dragons, as is the custom of his tribe, he can work with them. I've read the book, and here's my problem - in the book, the Vikings don't kill dragons, they train them. Each Viking lad must catch and train a dragon to become a full member of the tribe, as dragons are very useful to the Vikings, essentially filling the role of dogs. The drama in the book comes from a different perspective on HOW to train dragons (hence the name), and that there's more to dragons than the Vikings think. If the book can be said to have any message at all, it is that the small and weak aren't completely useless, that adversaries can become allies in a common cause, and that baser instincts can sometimes be overcome.
Now, of course books must be altered to be made into movies, a direct conversion of most books would be terminally dull on the screen (see Harry Potters 1 & 2). But, this sort of massive change to the core sentiment of the book in an effort to create a better "message" is irritating bullshit. Especially when the message is tolerance; tolerance is overrated, and used as a weapon. Tolerance goes both ways. The people who seem to preach tolerance the most are some of the most intolerant people around, they're just intolerant of things they've gotten labeled as evil, like intolerant people.
The movie may be entertaining, the movie may be fun, but it corrupts the spirit of the book, and shouldn't have the same name, and I don't give a shit about the message.
Now, of course books must be altered to be made into movies, a direct conversion of most books would be terminally dull on the screen (see Harry Potters 1 & 2). But, this sort of massive change to the core sentiment of the book in an effort to create a better "message" is irritating bullshit. Especially when the message is tolerance; tolerance is overrated, and used as a weapon. Tolerance goes both ways. The people who seem to preach tolerance the most are some of the most intolerant people around, they're just intolerant of things they've gotten labeled as evil, like intolerant people.
The movie may be entertaining, the movie may be fun, but it corrupts the spirit of the book, and shouldn't have the same name, and I don't give a shit about the message.
Wednesday, March 24, 2010
Significant health problems
This question and answer were forwarded to me by an MD I know:
From CNN:
"Question: Over 30 million couples suffer from infertility in the United
States. Most insurers will not cover this problem. Will the new bill
finally address this as a significant health problem?
Answer: There is nothing in the bill regarding this issue. One benefit is
that insurance companies cannot deny coverage to couples who suffer from
infertility because it was deemed a pre-existing condition. However, in
terms of covering infertility treatments or in-vitro fertilization, none of
that is made mandatory under the bill for insurance companies."
His response - "I wonder if his auto insurance affords for custom paint jobs?"
My thoughts:
I guess it depends on your definition of "significant health problem". If anything that makes you sad is a significant problem, then you're set. If creating stress, weakening your immune system, spreading disease, lowering living standards, resource consumption out of proportion to size and productivity, and shortening lifespans is a "significant health problem", then fertility should be treatable under the health plan.
From CNN:
"Question: Over 30 million couples suffer from infertility in the United
States. Most insurers will not cover this problem. Will the new bill
finally address this as a significant health problem?
Answer: There is nothing in the bill regarding this issue. One benefit is
that insurance companies cannot deny coverage to couples who suffer from
infertility because it was deemed a pre-existing condition. However, in
terms of covering infertility treatments or in-vitro fertilization, none of
that is made mandatory under the bill for insurance companies."
His response - "I wonder if his auto insurance affords for custom paint jobs?"
My thoughts:
I guess it depends on your definition of "significant health problem". If anything that makes you sad is a significant problem, then you're set. If creating stress, weakening your immune system, spreading disease, lowering living standards, resource consumption out of proportion to size and productivity, and shortening lifespans is a "significant health problem", then fertility should be treatable under the health plan.
Monday, March 22, 2010
2010 Census - Un-F*&$ing-Believable
One week before the census forms were mailed, the Census Bureau spent $42 million to send out letters warning us that the Census was coming. Then the Census forms came. I have not been able to fill it out, as it asks about who is living at this address as of April 1, 2010, and it is not yet April 1. Anything could happen between now and then, and I'd hate to send the U.S. government inaccurate information because I jumped the gun. Although, the idea of screwing up the government by filling out their paperwork, then dying, and having my rotting corpse affecting congressional districts for the next 10 years does appeal to me.
That's not the un-F*&$ing-Believable part thought. Today, I got a postcard reminding me that I'd gotten the census form and asking me to send it in as soon as possible. The card was dated March 22. Is the Census Bureau terminally stupid? Are they deliberately doing this to make a mockery of themselves? Who is in charge of this? Are they purposely trying to make me NOT follow the official instructions?
This is what happens when you put brain-dead government drones, who work for the government because they can't get a real job anywhere else, in charge of something, that doesn't even serve a real purpose anymore.
That's not the un-F*&$ing-Believable part thought. Today, I got a postcard reminding me that I'd gotten the census form and asking me to send it in as soon as possible. The card was dated March 22. Is the Census Bureau terminally stupid? Are they deliberately doing this to make a mockery of themselves? Who is in charge of this? Are they purposely trying to make me NOT follow the official instructions?
This is what happens when you put brain-dead government drones, who work for the government because they can't get a real job anywhere else, in charge of something, that doesn't even serve a real purpose anymore.
HDTV double edged sword
When watching Rules of Engagement in HDTV, Patrick Warburton is the best looking cast member.
Friday, February 26, 2010
Say it with me, "RE-MOTE"
The thing with the buttons that changes the TV channels wirelessly from a distance, what's that called? A FRICKIN REMOTE (or just remote, if you prefer, I can even accept "changer"). IT IS NOT A CLICKER. Almost nobody alive today has seen, used, or even knows what a channel changing "clicker" is. The Zenith Space Command remote, introduced in 1956, operated by hammers physically striking bars, making "clicks". That was a clicker. Nothing else is, it's an inaccurate name, and hearing otherwise intelligent people say it bugs the hell out of me and hurts my ears. It's harder to pronounce "clicker" than "remote", too, unless you're Elmer Fudd, so given the laziness of the average person, I don't understand why they use it.
Don't go claiming that it's a phrase that's entered the lexicon as a generic term, like "dialing" a phone, even though there haven't been dials for years. At one time, EVERYONE alive used dial telephones, they all knew why it was called dialing, the term was standard. A very small portion of the population had TV "clickers", so almost everyone who ever used the term has no idea WHY THEY'RE EVEN SAYING IT.
I will give a pass to people who actually had a clicking remote, but the term must die with you, don't infect anyone else.
Don't go claiming that it's a phrase that's entered the lexicon as a generic term, like "dialing" a phone, even though there haven't been dials for years. At one time, EVERYONE alive used dial telephones, they all knew why it was called dialing, the term was standard. A very small portion of the population had TV "clickers", so almost everyone who ever used the term has no idea WHY THEY'RE EVEN SAYING IT.
I will give a pass to people who actually had a clicking remote, but the term must die with you, don't infect anyone else.
Sunday, February 21, 2010
Lama, Obama. Obama, Lama.
The Dalai Lama met with Barack Obama, as he has met with previous presidents for the last 20 years. The Chinese government was annoyed, as they always have been over such meetings. The Lama/Obama meeting was scaled back to a more discrete arrangement. The headline regarding this was "Dalai Lama doesn't fault Obama for quiet meeting". Of course he doesn't, he's the Dalai Lama! I'm pretty sure it's in his job description to take things as they come, make the best of them, and not complain about people who are making an effort. This falls under the "Dog bites man" and "Pope condemns violence" category of headlines. When the Dalai Lama calls someone a fellating political hack, that'll be a real headline.
Afterthought, the Dalai Lama commented on the Tiger Woods things, since Tiger says he's a Buddhist, and feels the need to get back to his religious principles. What did D.L. say? He doesn't know who Tiger Woods is! I love it. Seems that spending 60 years focusing on being a religious leader and working against the military occupation of your country is what it takes to keep from being sucked into the pit of celebrity depravity. However, he had advice for Tiger - Buddhism takes the same line on adultery as most other religions. Way to go Dalai, 3 for 3 in one interview. Keep popping the egos and not giving the grave-robbing media hacks anything to work with.
Afterthought, the Dalai Lama commented on the Tiger Woods things, since Tiger says he's a Buddhist, and feels the need to get back to his religious principles. What did D.L. say? He doesn't know who Tiger Woods is! I love it. Seems that spending 60 years focusing on being a religious leader and working against the military occupation of your country is what it takes to keep from being sucked into the pit of celebrity depravity. However, he had advice for Tiger - Buddhism takes the same line on adultery as most other religions. Way to go Dalai, 3 for 3 in one interview. Keep popping the egos and not giving the grave-robbing media hacks anything to work with.
Humorless Receptacle
I am a member of a certain unnamed professional networking site where people get linked to each other, to exchange information, network, job hunt, and give and receive all sorts of professional advice. I belong to a few groups in this system, one of which is for alumni of a certain prestigious university that sits south of the Mason-Dixon line, and has never been attended by Prince Andrew. Last week, a post was made to this alumni group, linking to a humorous list of snappy answers to stupid job interview questions. They're pretty funny, and we've all probably heard (or heard about) some of them. Go check it out.
Anyway, the first comment posted was from a pharaceutical professional, Ph.D., with 500+ followers on the network, who felt that "anyone with a degree from (prestigious university) would not appreciate such sophomoric humor". Apparently I missed that day when working on my Ph.D. at said prestigious institution, because I enjoyed the hell out of the list. Unfortunately, this humorless individual shit in the pool with the first comment out, thus setting the tone and making it difficult for anyone else to comment positively. Additionally, as this is a professional networking site, saying that you enjoy such subversive humor could get you in trouble down the line, particularly since you are identified when commenting, and don't have the weasel shield of anonymity to hide behind (as I'm doing here). I told this story to someone else, and he provided me the title of the post (except he didn't say receptacle, he used a word that rhymes with an alternative way to hit a baseball), a phrase that would fit in perfectly in this series of outtakes from Better Off Ted, which contain very strong language.
Anyway, what I'm trying to say, is it's easy for one person to ruin other people's fun, especially when we all know that the list has a strong element of truth behind it. People who have a sense of humor never seem to have much trouble with the stick-up-the-butt persuasion, but the humorless just can't handle anything outside their microscopically narrow view of what is acceptable. Whipping out the humongous tarbrush to claim that a degree would prevent us from laughing is the action of an uptight, miserable human being who needs to get over themselves. Perhaps we could learn from the way that people agree with the list, and those responsible for asking these dumbass survey questions could re-evaluate their priorities. But no, they couldn't do that, it's easier to call people sophomoric and denigrate them than to acknowledge that they have a point.
Anyway, the first comment posted was from a pharaceutical professional, Ph.D., with 500+ followers on the network, who felt that "anyone with a degree from (prestigious university) would not appreciate such sophomoric humor". Apparently I missed that day when working on my Ph.D. at said prestigious institution, because I enjoyed the hell out of the list. Unfortunately, this humorless individual shit in the pool with the first comment out, thus setting the tone and making it difficult for anyone else to comment positively. Additionally, as this is a professional networking site, saying that you enjoy such subversive humor could get you in trouble down the line, particularly since you are identified when commenting, and don't have the weasel shield of anonymity to hide behind (as I'm doing here). I told this story to someone else, and he provided me the title of the post (except he didn't say receptacle, he used a word that rhymes with an alternative way to hit a baseball), a phrase that would fit in perfectly in this series of outtakes from Better Off Ted, which contain very strong language.
Anyway, what I'm trying to say, is it's easy for one person to ruin other people's fun, especially when we all know that the list has a strong element of truth behind it. People who have a sense of humor never seem to have much trouble with the stick-up-the-butt persuasion, but the humorless just can't handle anything outside their microscopically narrow view of what is acceptable. Whipping out the humongous tarbrush to claim that a degree would prevent us from laughing is the action of an uptight, miserable human being who needs to get over themselves. Perhaps we could learn from the way that people agree with the list, and those responsible for asking these dumbass survey questions could re-evaluate their priorities. But no, they couldn't do that, it's easier to call people sophomoric and denigrate them than to acknowledge that they have a point.
Stupid Census Commercial Part II
So, so there's a series of stupid census commercials going on, with the "Snapshot of America" catchphrase. These are also particularly stupid (see my first Stupid Census Commercial post). It doesn't help that the recognizable actors are noted liberal activists (like Ed Begely Jr. and the guy who was the gay movie producer giving Jed Bartlett a hard time on West Wing). BUT, my main point is the idea of the census being a "snapshot of America" is total bullshit. I said it before and I'll say it again, the point of the census is supposed to be a count, nothing more. All the demographic stuff is nonsense used to play games with money.
AND, have you heard that the 2010 census is estimated to cost $14BILLION dollars? Most of that is chasing down people who don't answer their form in the mail. Maybe if all they did was make a straight count of people, they'd get it right the first time.
AND, have you heard that the 2010 census is estimated to cost $14BILLION dollars? Most of that is chasing down people who don't answer their form in the mail. Maybe if all they did was make a straight count of people, they'd get it right the first time.
Thursday, February 4, 2010
What I saw in traffic today
Got behind two interesting cars today. The first was a pickup truck, relatively new, nice paint job advertising a car repair business, big logo, name, and phone number. The truck was absolutely spewing black smoke out the tailpipe. Good advertising.
Then I passed a minivan with a "Republicans for Obama" bumper sticker on it. I remember some sort of "Republicans for Voldemort" sticker a while ago, but this one is clever. Very few people will fall for the Voldemort sticker, but the Obama sticker is believable. It may or may not be true in the specific case, there certainly were Republicans who voted for Obama, but the sticker doesn't have to be true on that car. If I were a trouble-maker, and I can be, putting an upsetting, but believable sticker on my car would be the best way to annoy people. That's a hell of a way to astroturf, just get a group of people who commute in the same metro area every day to put a fake sticker on their car, and suddenly you've got people believing that Houston is a hotbed of Democrats for Huckabee.
Then I passed a minivan with a "Republicans for Obama" bumper sticker on it. I remember some sort of "Republicans for Voldemort" sticker a while ago, but this one is clever. Very few people will fall for the Voldemort sticker, but the Obama sticker is believable. It may or may not be true in the specific case, there certainly were Republicans who voted for Obama, but the sticker doesn't have to be true on that car. If I were a trouble-maker, and I can be, putting an upsetting, but believable sticker on my car would be the best way to annoy people. That's a hell of a way to astroturf, just get a group of people who commute in the same metro area every day to put a fake sticker on their car, and suddenly you've got people believing that Houston is a hotbed of Democrats for Huckabee.
Wednesday, February 3, 2010
Who's to Blame?
On Chris Bowers' blog post at Open Left, the projected woes of congressional Democrats in the upcoming election are discussed, with a view to assigning blame. The author blames delays in getting health care out of committee, as getting it passed and voted on would have gotten it out of the newscycle. He blames a group of Democrats that took $100B out of the stimulus bill, and another group that blocked mortgage cramdown. Finally, the Obama administration is blamed for not taking on banks hard enough or fast enough.
Agree with him or not, a certain theme kept occurring to me (beside the fact that assigning blame is more fun than coming up with solutions). The author's main thesis seems to be that the function of congressional Democrats is to get re-elected, thus keeping their majority. He doesn't seem to be concerned about whether the actions he wants to occur retroctively would FIX problems, but rather that the actions "would have resulted in a superior electoral position for Democrats than the one they currently face."
What matters more, trying to find the right thing to do, and fix problems, or to keep your image high in the minds of the voters, and hold onto the precious majority so that the "opposition" can't take a crack at screwing things up? The best thing that ever happens for either party is being in the minority when everything goes haywire, so that they can deflect blame and come out on top. Being in charge when everything goes to shit is a death sentence, because for damn sure Congress isn't actually going to be able to FIX THINGS.
Congressional approval is somewhere around 20-30%. Complete turnover couldn't possibly make things worse, and at least by getting rid of the good-ole-boys (and girls) who have been making connections and building their sleazy power constructs, the mass of corruption and incompetence would be gone. Of course, the problem is, that whenever this comes up, people may disapprove off all of congress, but they don't disapprove of their guy. "Vote out everyone else, but keep in Senator Doofus, he does good things for my state." With that attitude, nothing ever changes.
Well, guess what, you can't think like that anymore. Everyone has to go. If Senator Doofus is really a good guy, he can run again in a few years, and take another crack at it. When it's time to vote, vote against the incumbent. Vote against them in the primary, vote against them in the general election, vote against them in the run-off. Yes, it means not voting the straight party-ticket that you always do. Yes, it means voting for an asshole who says mind-bogglingly stupid things and has dangerous ideas. But you know what? The guy you like says stupid things too, and has dangerous ideas too, that's part of being human. The part of the system that works is that they need about 268 other people to agree with their stupidity in order to change anything, and how often does that happen? Too often, I know, but again, by dismantling the sleazy power structures, it'll be harder for them to put together a coalition of schmucks to scratch each others' backs and pass bullshit wastes of money. And, in the next election, vote out the asshole you voted in this time.
Everyone must go.
Agree with him or not, a certain theme kept occurring to me (beside the fact that assigning blame is more fun than coming up with solutions). The author's main thesis seems to be that the function of congressional Democrats is to get re-elected, thus keeping their majority. He doesn't seem to be concerned about whether the actions he wants to occur retroctively would FIX problems, but rather that the actions "would have resulted in a superior electoral position for Democrats than the one they currently face."
What matters more, trying to find the right thing to do, and fix problems, or to keep your image high in the minds of the voters, and hold onto the precious majority so that the "opposition" can't take a crack at screwing things up? The best thing that ever happens for either party is being in the minority when everything goes haywire, so that they can deflect blame and come out on top. Being in charge when everything goes to shit is a death sentence, because for damn sure Congress isn't actually going to be able to FIX THINGS.
Congressional approval is somewhere around 20-30%. Complete turnover couldn't possibly make things worse, and at least by getting rid of the good-ole-boys (and girls) who have been making connections and building their sleazy power constructs, the mass of corruption and incompetence would be gone. Of course, the problem is, that whenever this comes up, people may disapprove off all of congress, but they don't disapprove of their guy. "Vote out everyone else, but keep in Senator Doofus, he does good things for my state." With that attitude, nothing ever changes.
Well, guess what, you can't think like that anymore. Everyone has to go. If Senator Doofus is really a good guy, he can run again in a few years, and take another crack at it. When it's time to vote, vote against the incumbent. Vote against them in the primary, vote against them in the general election, vote against them in the run-off. Yes, it means not voting the straight party-ticket that you always do. Yes, it means voting for an asshole who says mind-bogglingly stupid things and has dangerous ideas. But you know what? The guy you like says stupid things too, and has dangerous ideas too, that's part of being human. The part of the system that works is that they need about 268 other people to agree with their stupidity in order to change anything, and how often does that happen? Too often, I know, but again, by dismantling the sleazy power structures, it'll be harder for them to put together a coalition of schmucks to scratch each others' backs and pass bullshit wastes of money. And, in the next election, vote out the asshole you voted in this time.
Everyone must go.
Tuesday, January 26, 2010
Little pencil
OK, I just started using blogger.com (or as I know it historically, blogspot.com, which sounds a FL^3 more sophisticated), and I'm feeling my way around. I feel like I'm cheating when I want to edit a published post even to fix a typo; if I post it, I should be done with it, and shouldn't get to change history. In fact, I just changed this post three times, and if I didn't admit it here, it would go unnoticed.
Anyway, it irks me that I have to figure it out every time, since there's no obvious way to edit. Of course, the tiny little pencil down at the very bottom of the post is what I have to click to edit, how intuitively obvious. Not to me. I guess the easy answer is for me to be completely perfect and never have to edit. Maybe that's why the pencil is so small.
Anyway, it irks me that I have to figure it out every time, since there's no obvious way to edit. Of course, the tiny little pencil down at the very bottom of the post is what I have to click to edit, how intuitively obvious. Not to me. I guess the easy answer is for me to be completely perfect and never have to edit. Maybe that's why the pencil is so small.
Where's my country, dude?
I like the TV show Better Off Ted. It's one of the funnier things on these days. It makes a variety of cruel and wildly inaccurate jokes about workplaces, harassment policies, scientific research, HIPAA, and human relations. However, it is usually very apparent that these are inaccurate stereotypes for humorous purposes.
I was watching a recent episode online. ABC has done something interesting with optional commentary for the episodes; actors, writers, or other people of interest have written comments that appear alongside the video, which are usually moderately entertaining. For commentary on episode 202, "The Lawyer, The Lemur, and the Little Listener", a pretty entertaining commentary was provided by writer Tim Doyle.
(episode with Tim's commentary)
Near the end of the episode (18:47), the character Linda is facetiously replying to her crazy boss, who is complaining about something, and says mock seriously, "...they make it crazy hard to kill anyone here. I want my country back. Anyway..." A reasonably funny line, hyperbolically making fun of an overused trite line. However... In Tim's commentary at that point, he says, "My favorite joke in the episode (not really a joke, just a reference to "tea party" folks who feel their America slipping away)."
Now, I've never even heard of Tim Doyle before, and far be it from me to determine the entirety of his political views from that comment, and it's hard to read tone into written words. But. If that's what he has in mind, I'm a tad annoyed. "I want my country back" is a sentiment used by an awful lot of different groups. I sure saw plenty of "Dude, where's my country" and "OK, joke's over, bring back the constitution" bumper stickers over the last few years, and I'm pretty sure those people weren't tea partiers. At least Tim didn't put "their America" in quotes as well.
Everyone who's lived long enough feels their America slipping away, there are always changes, and if there's one thing almost all living things have in common, it's that they hate change. Saying that the tea party crowd is the only group with that sentiment isn't accurate; the tea party crowd is merely the latest, and currently loudest. I guess I can't blame Tim Doyle from saying that, it's the best example right now, but it still bugs me the way the label gets slapped.
One more thing while I'm here - calling tax protesters teabaggers. Free speech and all, go ahead. But as the woman whose name I can't remember just demonstrated on CNN, it's tacky and makes you look like a person anonymously screaming on the internet with poor spelling, grammar, and punctuation. But, it's perfectly your right, when a group of people self identifies themselves with a tag, to call them something insulting instead. Isn't that what liberals believe in? I know feminists, homosexuals, and people of all races and religions accept that as their due for merely existing and trying to be part of something larger.
I was watching a recent episode online. ABC has done something interesting with optional commentary for the episodes; actors, writers, or other people of interest have written comments that appear alongside the video, which are usually moderately entertaining. For commentary on episode 202, "The Lawyer, The Lemur, and the Little Listener", a pretty entertaining commentary was provided by writer Tim Doyle.
(episode with Tim's commentary)
Near the end of the episode (18:47), the character Linda is facetiously replying to her crazy boss, who is complaining about something, and says mock seriously, "...they make it crazy hard to kill anyone here. I want my country back. Anyway..." A reasonably funny line, hyperbolically making fun of an overused trite line. However... In Tim's commentary at that point, he says, "My favorite joke in the episode (not really a joke, just a reference to "tea party" folks who feel their America slipping away)."
Now, I've never even heard of Tim Doyle before, and far be it from me to determine the entirety of his political views from that comment, and it's hard to read tone into written words. But. If that's what he has in mind, I'm a tad annoyed. "I want my country back" is a sentiment used by an awful lot of different groups. I sure saw plenty of "Dude, where's my country" and "OK, joke's over, bring back the constitution" bumper stickers over the last few years, and I'm pretty sure those people weren't tea partiers. At least Tim didn't put "their America" in quotes as well.
Everyone who's lived long enough feels their America slipping away, there are always changes, and if there's one thing almost all living things have in common, it's that they hate change. Saying that the tea party crowd is the only group with that sentiment isn't accurate; the tea party crowd is merely the latest, and currently loudest. I guess I can't blame Tim Doyle from saying that, it's the best example right now, but it still bugs me the way the label gets slapped.
One more thing while I'm here - calling tax protesters teabaggers. Free speech and all, go ahead. But as the woman whose name I can't remember just demonstrated on CNN, it's tacky and makes you look like a person anonymously screaming on the internet with poor spelling, grammar, and punctuation. But, it's perfectly your right, when a group of people self identifies themselves with a tag, to call them something insulting instead. Isn't that what liberals believe in? I know feminists, homosexuals, and people of all races and religions accept that as their due for merely existing and trying to be part of something larger.
Wednesday, January 20, 2010
New Jersey Gay Marriage
I'm a little slow on this one, it happened a week or two ago. The New Jersey legislature voted down a bill that would have provided official recognition to gay marriage. The typical comments were made on blog sites that I cruise, i.e. how does this make my marriage safer, how can the legislators be so out of touch with the populace, Fox News, Republicans, all the usual stuff.
A few thoughts on that, some are mine, some are what I think that other people think, I'm not saying which is which -
How out of touch are the legislators, really? They got elected, presumably fairly, right? If they aren't truly representing, vote for someone else next time. It's on the opposite side of the country, in all the ways you can think of, but the referendum in California on the subject seems to have shown that neither side has the convincing majority that they seem to think they should, if only people had the slightest bit of sense.
Marriage has already become cheap enough, being treated as if it's dispensable. Couples don't get married because they don't care, couples rush into and out of marriage because they don't care, people cheat on their marriage vows because they don't care. "Defense of marriage" is the idea that marriage is one of the most significant committments that people can make, that serious married relationships are good for societal stability, and telling people that their marriage counts the same as one they don't respect hurts an important pillar of civilization.
Now for my skewed view of the history of marriage -
As was pointed out on the judgemental monkey show on Durham, NC public access cable (I don't know the guy's name or what he calls the show), the modern idea of marriage for love is a pretty recent (last 100-200 years) concept. If you had money or royal status, marriages were arranged for political and power reasons, and the kids didn't get a say in it. They did it for the good of the family, the man and woman each understood that the other didn't have a say in it, and they made the best of it. Some worked better than others. But, they produced heirs, they kept the family line going, they kept the money and power in the right place, and that was the point.
If you didn't have money or status, you got married to whoever was handy, and marriages were usually still arranged by the parents, to try and create a stable union that would benefit the family. A man needed a wife to bear children for him, so that as he got old, they could help him in his labors, eventually taking over, and taking care of him in his dotage so he didn't starve to death. A woman needed a man to support her, because there were very limited options for a woman to make a decent living (they could do it, but there weren't many openings), and again, she needs children to take care of her in her old age. Again, the family line continues, the farm stays in the family, no one dies as a beggar in the street.
Marriage was for the good of the family, to generate children and create a stable social structure. Most people lived their whole lives where they were born, staying close to their families, within a larger supporting social structure. The whole "it takes a village" deal. Stability and continuity were critical for life in this essentially "tribal" society.
What to do with people who don't want to get married or have children in a system like this? One common response would be, "suck it up and do it, we all did it, and you don't have any other options". In Europe, the church was useful because it could take excess children as monks, nuns, or priests. Then they didn't have to get married to continue the social structure, as the clergy created its own continuing tribal society by recruitment rather than breeding, generating a young/old mix like a family so again, no old folks are freezing in snowdrifts.
What was the point of marriage in such a preindustrial type society? Social, legal, and religious aspects are all part of it. Rich or poor, marriage was a social contract, that's the point of the ceremony. Make the couple stand up in front of their family and the community and make promises to each other. That's a heavy obligation, everyone witnessed it, and you've got nowhere else to go if you change your mind, so you're stuck with it. Legal was more important if you had stuff or were royalty. Properties were exchanged and merged, kingdoms were allied, and wars averted by judiciously arranged unions. Again, a lot of pressure on the happy couple, and the pressure to produce an heir was enormous, as the future of the political alliance depended on it.
Religious is an extension of both social and legal. The social significance of having to live up to your promises after the entire community heard you make them is enforced by the idea that God heard your promises too, and is watching whether you live up to them. The religious/legal connection is more important, again, when you have stuff. Kings and queens ruled by divine right, and were coronated by the clergy, so again, the religious marriage ceremony is an obligation before God, and a symbol to others that God has blessed this economic and political union.
Humans love ritual and ceremony. Anything that gets done more than twice gets a ritual built around it, we all invent them in our own lives. You're less likely to walk out on your spouse when you've been through a big ceremony, made promises, and been married in (important words) "the eyes of God and men". They're all watching you and holding you to a standard. From the other direction, decent and honest people didn't interfere in the marriages of others out of respect for the obligations that those people have to each other.
I know, I know. People have been screwing around on each other forever, but a lot didn't, and many of those that did at least felt bad about it, and if they got caught, there was severe social stigma. Never discount the power of social stigma in an insular tribal society (Scarlet Letter? The Crucible?)
So, marriage is important to a society working to survive, and to people trying to keep what they've got. Bringing us to children. When a group stops having children, it ends. When all of humanity was composed of small units trying to kill their neighbors, while not being killed by their neighbors, you've got to crank out the babies to have a next generation to keep the fighting going. Kill half the men of a tribe, the women and children will repopulate it the next generation like nothing ever happened (allowing polygamy and barring other catastrophes). Kill half the women, and you're at a severe disadvantage for generations, since females are the limiting reagent in population growth.
Societies in this state can't afford full-time homosexuality. Ancient Greek men enjoyed homosexuality (in reality, not just stereotypes), but still went and knocked up their wives. In Sparta, men in active military service (which was pretty much everyone who was of the proper age) were kept separate from their wives much of the time, but required by law to spend a certain amount of time with them, to produce the next generation's army.
A few non-breeders are acceptable, as long as they don't make up too much of the tribal population, and again, as long as they're men. Plains American Indian warriors who dressed as women, but fought alongside the men; the eunuchs in a variety of cultures, especially China, given great power in the court, on the assumption that without children of their own, they would operate on behalf of the rulers, not to position their own. As long as there were just a few of them, and they pulled their weight, that was fine. Like keeping around old people who can't hack it anymore, physically speaking, or the borderline autistics who can act as repositories of knowledge, and doers of repetitive tasks, but can't function as an integral part of the social structure. Potentially useful to have around, if you can afford them.
What people really seem to be afraid of is the loss of the "traditional family". Like I was talking about earlier, the modern idea of the perfect traditional family is just that, a modern idea. Going back to the agrarian or pre-industrial society, children lived at home until they got married, at which point they might still live at home, or move all the way to next door. The large extended family with close ties was the standard; now, there's all kinds of variations. What people seem to be bemoaning is children being raised by single parents, parents too busy to do the child-raising themselves, children of divorce and remarriage, children in shared custody that have either two parents who don't care, or are both trying too hard.
Children raised until all sorts of circumstances can turn out fine, but the empirical evidence indicates that the best results come from children raised in stable households, who get to play with lots of other kids, and who have good adult role models, both male and female. They need more adult role models than just their parents, they need aunts, uncles, teachers, coaches, and neighbors. Kids need to see adults who ACT LIKE ADULTS so they can learn how to do so when their time comes.
Opposition to gay marriage isn't necessarily out of opposition to homosexuality, it's opposition to the perceived further cheapening of the institution of marriage; to loss of stable family structures; to raising children haphazardly so that they aren't true scions of their culture and family heritage, but rather yet more randomly bouncing members of a dysfunctional society, with no regard for who they are, where they came from, and their obligations to the bigger picture. It's opposition to the discarding of rite and ritual that lend solidity to peoples' actions, makes them part of something larger than themselves, and again, gives them obligations to fulfill. It's opposition to the perceived creation of a nation of extreme individualists.
So, back to the different types of marriage. In the social marriage, for homosexuals to declare their marriage means that they are committing to each other in front of whoever they feel is important in their lives. In the religious marriage, they are declaring their union before God, and the church is declaring their marriage the equal of any other marriage within that religion. In the legal marriage, the government is granting a set of rights, legal obligations, and powers to the individuals, relative to each other, and again, declaring the marriage equivalent to any other marriage recognized by the government. The problem is that "tradional married couples" don't think that those types of marriage should get to count the same as their own, sometimes for some of the reasons I've given above.
Now, if you've put up with all this crap, and still give a flip what I actually think, here it is:
Socially, the most important place to be married is in your own head. Your marriage only means as much as it means to you, and can only be as strong, committed, and loving as you believe it can be. If you are genuinely committed to the other person, no person or institution should stop you from being with them. Beyond your own acceptance, recognition by friends and family is all you really need. And if they don't accept it, screw 'em.
Religiously, it's up to the religion, which means it's up to the people who comprise it. No decision is going to make everybody happy in a religion, that why there's so many of them, they keep splitting and getting reinvented. The rejection of a marriage performed in one faith by another faith is unfortunate, but nothing new. If your religion won't change to fit you, you have a really sucky decision, but it's your decision, and you're the one who's going to have to change something.
Legally, I like state's rights. It's up to the people to decide what flies and what doesn't, and if you don't like it, see the sucky decision under the religious heading. That said, government could cut the Gordian knot by doing away with a lot of things. A legally recognized marriage essentially confers automatic power of attorney, inheritance rights, tax rules, and a few other things on a couple. Most of these things can be done by paperwork, without a marriage. The state governments could just provide simple legal means to give another person those rights, and legal ways to end those rights, i.e. a divorce. (Have you noticed that marriages tend to be religious, but divorces tend to be entirely legal proceedings? If the church is the instrument marrying you, shouldn't it be the instrument divorcing you? Yes, I know that a variety of churches approve annulments and divorces, but this is really something for another time.) The fair tax would probably also be useful in this case, as removing the tax implications of joint filing would eliminate a lot of ground for arguments (just had to get that one in for N.B.)
A few thoughts on that, some are mine, some are what I think that other people think, I'm not saying which is which -
How out of touch are the legislators, really? They got elected, presumably fairly, right? If they aren't truly representing, vote for someone else next time. It's on the opposite side of the country, in all the ways you can think of, but the referendum in California on the subject seems to have shown that neither side has the convincing majority that they seem to think they should, if only people had the slightest bit of sense.
Marriage has already become cheap enough, being treated as if it's dispensable. Couples don't get married because they don't care, couples rush into and out of marriage because they don't care, people cheat on their marriage vows because they don't care. "Defense of marriage" is the idea that marriage is one of the most significant committments that people can make, that serious married relationships are good for societal stability, and telling people that their marriage counts the same as one they don't respect hurts an important pillar of civilization.
Now for my skewed view of the history of marriage -
As was pointed out on the judgemental monkey show on Durham, NC public access cable (I don't know the guy's name or what he calls the show), the modern idea of marriage for love is a pretty recent (last 100-200 years) concept. If you had money or royal status, marriages were arranged for political and power reasons, and the kids didn't get a say in it. They did it for the good of the family, the man and woman each understood that the other didn't have a say in it, and they made the best of it. Some worked better than others. But, they produced heirs, they kept the family line going, they kept the money and power in the right place, and that was the point.
If you didn't have money or status, you got married to whoever was handy, and marriages were usually still arranged by the parents, to try and create a stable union that would benefit the family. A man needed a wife to bear children for him, so that as he got old, they could help him in his labors, eventually taking over, and taking care of him in his dotage so he didn't starve to death. A woman needed a man to support her, because there were very limited options for a woman to make a decent living (they could do it, but there weren't many openings), and again, she needs children to take care of her in her old age. Again, the family line continues, the farm stays in the family, no one dies as a beggar in the street.
Marriage was for the good of the family, to generate children and create a stable social structure. Most people lived their whole lives where they were born, staying close to their families, within a larger supporting social structure. The whole "it takes a village" deal. Stability and continuity were critical for life in this essentially "tribal" society.
What to do with people who don't want to get married or have children in a system like this? One common response would be, "suck it up and do it, we all did it, and you don't have any other options". In Europe, the church was useful because it could take excess children as monks, nuns, or priests. Then they didn't have to get married to continue the social structure, as the clergy created its own continuing tribal society by recruitment rather than breeding, generating a young/old mix like a family so again, no old folks are freezing in snowdrifts.
What was the point of marriage in such a preindustrial type society? Social, legal, and religious aspects are all part of it. Rich or poor, marriage was a social contract, that's the point of the ceremony. Make the couple stand up in front of their family and the community and make promises to each other. That's a heavy obligation, everyone witnessed it, and you've got nowhere else to go if you change your mind, so you're stuck with it. Legal was more important if you had stuff or were royalty. Properties were exchanged and merged, kingdoms were allied, and wars averted by judiciously arranged unions. Again, a lot of pressure on the happy couple, and the pressure to produce an heir was enormous, as the future of the political alliance depended on it.
Religious is an extension of both social and legal. The social significance of having to live up to your promises after the entire community heard you make them is enforced by the idea that God heard your promises too, and is watching whether you live up to them. The religious/legal connection is more important, again, when you have stuff. Kings and queens ruled by divine right, and were coronated by the clergy, so again, the religious marriage ceremony is an obligation before God, and a symbol to others that God has blessed this economic and political union.
Humans love ritual and ceremony. Anything that gets done more than twice gets a ritual built around it, we all invent them in our own lives. You're less likely to walk out on your spouse when you've been through a big ceremony, made promises, and been married in (important words) "the eyes of God and men". They're all watching you and holding you to a standard. From the other direction, decent and honest people didn't interfere in the marriages of others out of respect for the obligations that those people have to each other.
I know, I know. People have been screwing around on each other forever, but a lot didn't, and many of those that did at least felt bad about it, and if they got caught, there was severe social stigma. Never discount the power of social stigma in an insular tribal society (Scarlet Letter? The Crucible?)
So, marriage is important to a society working to survive, and to people trying to keep what they've got. Bringing us to children. When a group stops having children, it ends. When all of humanity was composed of small units trying to kill their neighbors, while not being killed by their neighbors, you've got to crank out the babies to have a next generation to keep the fighting going. Kill half the men of a tribe, the women and children will repopulate it the next generation like nothing ever happened (allowing polygamy and barring other catastrophes). Kill half the women, and you're at a severe disadvantage for generations, since females are the limiting reagent in population growth.
Societies in this state can't afford full-time homosexuality. Ancient Greek men enjoyed homosexuality (in reality, not just stereotypes), but still went and knocked up their wives. In Sparta, men in active military service (which was pretty much everyone who was of the proper age) were kept separate from their wives much of the time, but required by law to spend a certain amount of time with them, to produce the next generation's army.
A few non-breeders are acceptable, as long as they don't make up too much of the tribal population, and again, as long as they're men. Plains American Indian warriors who dressed as women, but fought alongside the men; the eunuchs in a variety of cultures, especially China, given great power in the court, on the assumption that without children of their own, they would operate on behalf of the rulers, not to position their own. As long as there were just a few of them, and they pulled their weight, that was fine. Like keeping around old people who can't hack it anymore, physically speaking, or the borderline autistics who can act as repositories of knowledge, and doers of repetitive tasks, but can't function as an integral part of the social structure. Potentially useful to have around, if you can afford them.
What people really seem to be afraid of is the loss of the "traditional family". Like I was talking about earlier, the modern idea of the perfect traditional family is just that, a modern idea. Going back to the agrarian or pre-industrial society, children lived at home until they got married, at which point they might still live at home, or move all the way to next door. The large extended family with close ties was the standard; now, there's all kinds of variations. What people seem to be bemoaning is children being raised by single parents, parents too busy to do the child-raising themselves, children of divorce and remarriage, children in shared custody that have either two parents who don't care, or are both trying too hard.
Children raised until all sorts of circumstances can turn out fine, but the empirical evidence indicates that the best results come from children raised in stable households, who get to play with lots of other kids, and who have good adult role models, both male and female. They need more adult role models than just their parents, they need aunts, uncles, teachers, coaches, and neighbors. Kids need to see adults who ACT LIKE ADULTS so they can learn how to do so when their time comes.
Opposition to gay marriage isn't necessarily out of opposition to homosexuality, it's opposition to the perceived further cheapening of the institution of marriage; to loss of stable family structures; to raising children haphazardly so that they aren't true scions of their culture and family heritage, but rather yet more randomly bouncing members of a dysfunctional society, with no regard for who they are, where they came from, and their obligations to the bigger picture. It's opposition to the discarding of rite and ritual that lend solidity to peoples' actions, makes them part of something larger than themselves, and again, gives them obligations to fulfill. It's opposition to the perceived creation of a nation of extreme individualists.
So, back to the different types of marriage. In the social marriage, for homosexuals to declare their marriage means that they are committing to each other in front of whoever they feel is important in their lives. In the religious marriage, they are declaring their union before God, and the church is declaring their marriage the equal of any other marriage within that religion. In the legal marriage, the government is granting a set of rights, legal obligations, and powers to the individuals, relative to each other, and again, declaring the marriage equivalent to any other marriage recognized by the government. The problem is that "tradional married couples" don't think that those types of marriage should get to count the same as their own, sometimes for some of the reasons I've given above.
Now, if you've put up with all this crap, and still give a flip what I actually think, here it is:
Socially, the most important place to be married is in your own head. Your marriage only means as much as it means to you, and can only be as strong, committed, and loving as you believe it can be. If you are genuinely committed to the other person, no person or institution should stop you from being with them. Beyond your own acceptance, recognition by friends and family is all you really need. And if they don't accept it, screw 'em.
Religiously, it's up to the religion, which means it's up to the people who comprise it. No decision is going to make everybody happy in a religion, that why there's so many of them, they keep splitting and getting reinvented. The rejection of a marriage performed in one faith by another faith is unfortunate, but nothing new. If your religion won't change to fit you, you have a really sucky decision, but it's your decision, and you're the one who's going to have to change something.
Legally, I like state's rights. It's up to the people to decide what flies and what doesn't, and if you don't like it, see the sucky decision under the religious heading. That said, government could cut the Gordian knot by doing away with a lot of things. A legally recognized marriage essentially confers automatic power of attorney, inheritance rights, tax rules, and a few other things on a couple. Most of these things can be done by paperwork, without a marriage. The state governments could just provide simple legal means to give another person those rights, and legal ways to end those rights, i.e. a divorce. (Have you noticed that marriages tend to be religious, but divorces tend to be entirely legal proceedings? If the church is the instrument marrying you, shouldn't it be the instrument divorcing you? Yes, I know that a variety of churches approve annulments and divorces, but this is really something for another time.) The fair tax would probably also be useful in this case, as removing the tax implications of joint filing would eliminate a lot of ground for arguments (just had to get that one in for N.B.)
Stupid Census Commercial
I heard the same radio commercial about three times in one hour, pushing the 2010 census. It has a homey, folksy guy explaining how in his community they had 100 kids in the school and 5 teachers and everything was fine. BUT, if the community grew, and the number of kids went up too much, there wouldn't be enough teachers, space, books, money, patience, etc. The meat of the argument is then brought out, that without the census, we wouldn't know how much things had grown, and how money needed to be apportioned.
BULLSHIT.
Are you that stupid that you need a federal census to figure out how many people live in your town? I'd think that all the people moving in might have been noticed by somebody. Second, the census occurs every 10 years. If growth started 10 years ago, the census is going to be a little late in catching up to it, and we return to my original thesis, the people who live in your town should have noticed this already. Finally, apportioning money. The people in your town make money and pay taxes (at least some of them do). If your town is growing and attracting new people, it's either because there are lot of jobs there, or it's a refugee camp. If it's economic growth, the money is already there to pay teachers, buy books, and build buildings. That's how schools usually operate, on the local level, with money collected and spent by the local government that can see, first-hand, what's going on.
I said it before, the CONSTITUTIONAL basis for the census is to apportion representatives and direct taxes, and since the 16th amendment eliminated the direct tax issue, there is only one valid reason for the federal government to do a head count, and only a head count. The end.
BULLSHIT.
Are you that stupid that you need a federal census to figure out how many people live in your town? I'd think that all the people moving in might have been noticed by somebody. Second, the census occurs every 10 years. If growth started 10 years ago, the census is going to be a little late in catching up to it, and we return to my original thesis, the people who live in your town should have noticed this already. Finally, apportioning money. The people in your town make money and pay taxes (at least some of them do). If your town is growing and attracting new people, it's either because there are lot of jobs there, or it's a refugee camp. If it's economic growth, the money is already there to pay teachers, buy books, and build buildings. That's how schools usually operate, on the local level, with money collected and spent by the local government that can see, first-hand, what's going on.
I said it before, the CONSTITUTIONAL basis for the census is to apportion representatives and direct taxes, and since the 16th amendment eliminated the direct tax issue, there is only one valid reason for the federal government to do a head count, and only a head count. The end.
Thursday, January 14, 2010
MLK Jr. Menu
So, now there are people upset that the Denver public schools are going to serve fried chicken and collard greens in honor of Martin Luther King Jr.
The knee-jerk reaction is that these are sterotyped southern black dishes, and making a caricature of the man. Well, maybe. My question is, did he actually like them? If he did, then it's perfectly reasonable to serve them. A little research on the Google has turned up this information:
From Joy Bennett Kinnon, Ebony, 2003
"I'm fortunate because some of my colleagues actually knew him as a young man and worked closely with him until his death. They tell me that King as a young man loved to have a good time. He loved soul food: red beans and rice, greens and ham hocks and pigs' feet. He also loved to dance."
A few different sources state that either his favorite dessert, or his favorite food of all was pecan pie:
Pecan Pie recipe in his honor
His favorite food was pecan pie
More about food
Shocking, isn't it, that a man who grew up in the south showed preference to traditional (or stereotypical, or caricatured) southern dishes. If the school served baloney sandwiches on Wonder bread with mayonnaise on MLKJ day, I'm sure someone would see that as a deliberate attempt to insult him memory by serving the most caricatured "White" meal they could come up with. If the man liked it, then by all means honor his memory by eating the food of his culture and thinking of him. What happened to embracing diversity?
The only problem I see is that fried chicken is not named as a particular favorite of his, so I would suggest that they serve pigs' feet and greens instead. And don't forget the pecan pie.
The knee-jerk reaction is that these are sterotyped southern black dishes, and making a caricature of the man. Well, maybe. My question is, did he actually like them? If he did, then it's perfectly reasonable to serve them. A little research on the Google has turned up this information:
From Joy Bennett Kinnon, Ebony, 2003
"I'm fortunate because some of my colleagues actually knew him as a young man and worked closely with him until his death. They tell me that King as a young man loved to have a good time. He loved soul food: red beans and rice, greens and ham hocks and pigs' feet. He also loved to dance."
A few different sources state that either his favorite dessert, or his favorite food of all was pecan pie:
Pecan Pie recipe in his honor
His favorite food was pecan pie
More about food
Shocking, isn't it, that a man who grew up in the south showed preference to traditional (or stereotypical, or caricatured) southern dishes. If the school served baloney sandwiches on Wonder bread with mayonnaise on MLKJ day, I'm sure someone would see that as a deliberate attempt to insult him memory by serving the most caricatured "White" meal they could come up with. If the man liked it, then by all means honor his memory by eating the food of his culture and thinking of him. What happened to embracing diversity?
The only problem I see is that fried chicken is not named as a particular favorite of his, so I would suggest that they serve pigs' feet and greens instead. And don't forget the pecan pie.
Monday, January 11, 2010
Census ethnicity box
So, the forms for the 2010 U.S. Census are out, and there has been some upset over the "race" section of the form. The first few choices are "White", "Black, African Am., or Negro", and "American Indian or Alaska Native", and there's a space to put a tribal affiliation. The word Negro is what's causing the problems. The defense is, some people still identify themselves as that, so that option should be there.
My problem is, the whole "race" section is flawed. White or Black/Afr Am/Negros get only those options. American Indians get to give a tribe. Below that, are checkboxes for: Asian Indian, Japanese, Native Hawaiian, Chinese, Korean, Filipino, Vietnamese, and more. So, a first generation German immigrant has to be "White", a first generation Nigerian immigrant has to be "Black", but a fifth-generation Chinese American gets to be Chinese. If the question about race is going to be asked, everyone should get to fill in the box with whatever they want.
Then, there's the actual legal purpose of the census. According to the US CONSTITUTION (remember it?), Section 2, Clause 3:
"Representatives and direct Taxes shall be apportioned among the several States which may be included within this Union, according to their respective Numbers, which shall be determined by adding to the whole Number of free Persons, including those bound to Service for a Term of Years, and excluding Indians not taxed, three fifths of all other Persons. (See Note 2) The actual Enumeration shall be made within three Years after the first Meeting of the Congress of the United States, and within every subsequent Term of ten Years, in such Manner as they shall by Law direct."
The only race issue there was if you're an Indian who doesn't pay taxes, or an "other Person", which was code for slave. Since we don't have "other Persons" anymore, and I believe the American Indians are treated like taxpaying human beings (most of the time), this clause essentially says:
"For the purposes of apportioning representative and direct taxes, the U.S. Government will count everyone, every 10 years."
RACE DOESN'T MATTER. INCOME DOESN'T MATTER. WHAT KIND OF HOUSE YOU LIVE IN OR CAR YOU DRIVE DOESN'T MATTER. HOW MANY TOILETS YOU HAVE DOESN'T MATTER.
The only right the government has is to ask you if you exist. Don't like the race section? DON'T ANSWER IT. Don't like any of the other stuff? Don't answer. It's none of anybody's damn business anyway.
If all men are created equal and we all have equal protection under the law, then we should all be counted as people, and congressional districts should be drawn to include the proper number of people, with the smallest possible perimeter. Representatives are for ALL the people who live inside that IMAGINARY LINE, not just the black, white, natives, Filipinos, or anything else.
Tell the census bureau how many people live there, and then tell them to take a flying leap. And remember, an official census taker will NEVER ask to come inside your house, EVER. And, find the appropriate number for your area to verify that the person at the door is official: http://2010.census.gov/2010census/contact/index.php
My problem is, the whole "race" section is flawed. White or Black/Afr Am/Negros get only those options. American Indians get to give a tribe. Below that, are checkboxes for: Asian Indian, Japanese, Native Hawaiian, Chinese, Korean, Filipino, Vietnamese, and more. So, a first generation German immigrant has to be "White", a first generation Nigerian immigrant has to be "Black", but a fifth-generation Chinese American gets to be Chinese. If the question about race is going to be asked, everyone should get to fill in the box with whatever they want.
Then, there's the actual legal purpose of the census. According to the US CONSTITUTION (remember it?), Section 2, Clause 3:
"Representatives and direct Taxes shall be apportioned among the several States which may be included within this Union, according to their respective Numbers, which shall be determined by adding to the whole Number of free Persons, including those bound to Service for a Term of Years, and excluding Indians not taxed, three fifths of all other Persons. (See Note 2) The actual Enumeration shall be made within three Years after the first Meeting of the Congress of the United States, and within every subsequent Term of ten Years, in such Manner as they shall by Law direct."
The only race issue there was if you're an Indian who doesn't pay taxes, or an "other Person", which was code for slave. Since we don't have "other Persons" anymore, and I believe the American Indians are treated like taxpaying human beings (most of the time), this clause essentially says:
"For the purposes of apportioning representative and direct taxes, the U.S. Government will count everyone, every 10 years."
RACE DOESN'T MATTER. INCOME DOESN'T MATTER. WHAT KIND OF HOUSE YOU LIVE IN OR CAR YOU DRIVE DOESN'T MATTER. HOW MANY TOILETS YOU HAVE DOESN'T MATTER.
The only right the government has is to ask you if you exist. Don't like the race section? DON'T ANSWER IT. Don't like any of the other stuff? Don't answer. It's none of anybody's damn business anyway.
If all men are created equal and we all have equal protection under the law, then we should all be counted as people, and congressional districts should be drawn to include the proper number of people, with the smallest possible perimeter. Representatives are for ALL the people who live inside that IMAGINARY LINE, not just the black, white, natives, Filipinos, or anything else.
Tell the census bureau how many people live there, and then tell them to take a flying leap. And remember, an official census taker will NEVER ask to come inside your house, EVER. And, find the appropriate number for your area to verify that the person at the door is official: http://2010.census.gov/2010census/contact/index.php
Friday, January 8, 2010
I Get That a Lot
I love to judge a book by it's cover, or in this case, a TV show by its promo. As far as I'm concerned most of the shows on TV are total garbage. I'm not a TV hater, I do watch TV, just selectively for the things I like. I breathe a sigh of relief when I see ads for a new show that I'm convinced I'd hate, as 1) It simplifies my schedule, as I don't have to try to watch or record it and 2) I get to complain about it. Things get complicated when someone else in the house wants to watch the garbage, though. One member likes a few of the reality competition shows, and they drive me absolutely nuts, as with few exceptions, I absolutely detest everyone on them, or at least, I detest the way they behave on camera. When I wind up watching these shows, I typically wind up spitting vitriol and obscenities at the TV, and it doesn't make me feel any better, since those people are going to keep on being morons who make the viewers even dumber.
So, I've seen the ads for this new show "I Get That a Lot", in which celebrities take a "normal job" and then get filmed on hidden camera interacting with people. Apparently, the "humor" of the show comes from the celebrity denying that they are the celebrity, and mocking their true self. Then they admit it, and everyone has a good laugh.
WHO DO THEY THINK YOU'RE KIDDING WITH THIS CRAP?
The point of a hidden camera practical joke show, like the original Candid Camera, is to film people reacting to truly odd situations. The point of the practical joke shows, originally, was to have people pull jokes on other people THEY ALREADY KNOW. Like Harpo and Chico Marx going on "To Tell the Truth" and fooling Groucho as to their identities. Having a "celebrity" pretend they're someone else, to people who've never met them before, is not particularly interesting. Especially to me, since it's very unlikely I'd recognize any of the people appearing in the ads.
The scenario would run like this:
Incompetent dry cleaning clerk: Here's your tux and receipt.
Me: Thanks.
Clerk: I'm really Rachael Ray, and we're filming this.
Me: Good for you, see you next time I throw up on my tuxedo.
If the "celebrity" were doing something interesting, that would be different, but all the clips are of them being unconvincing at an uninspiring job, and responding to questions about who they "look like" with, are you ready, "I get that a lot". Hi-larious.
Just because someone's famous doesn't make them comedy gold when you point a camera at their interactions with people. Just watch any talk show and that point is abundantly clear. Tune in to see an actor/actress you like on Leno or Letterman and odds are you'll find out they're dull as a sack of rocks.
To sum up:
Reaction of man/woman on the street to bizarre situation, a stampede of penguins down main street, for example - humorous
Friend pulling prank on friend/relative - humorous
Famous person delivering pizza to home of person DEMONSTRATED to be a fan of theirs - possibly humorous
Gene Simmons saying to complete stranger, "I'm not Gene Simmons, really, I'm not. OK, you got me, I am." - Cancellation.
So, I've seen the ads for this new show "I Get That a Lot", in which celebrities take a "normal job" and then get filmed on hidden camera interacting with people. Apparently, the "humor" of the show comes from the celebrity denying that they are the celebrity, and mocking their true self. Then they admit it, and everyone has a good laugh.
WHO DO THEY THINK YOU'RE KIDDING WITH THIS CRAP?
The point of a hidden camera practical joke show, like the original Candid Camera, is to film people reacting to truly odd situations. The point of the practical joke shows, originally, was to have people pull jokes on other people THEY ALREADY KNOW. Like Harpo and Chico Marx going on "To Tell the Truth" and fooling Groucho as to their identities. Having a "celebrity" pretend they're someone else, to people who've never met them before, is not particularly interesting. Especially to me, since it's very unlikely I'd recognize any of the people appearing in the ads.
The scenario would run like this:
Incompetent dry cleaning clerk: Here's your tux and receipt.
Me: Thanks.
Clerk: I'm really Rachael Ray, and we're filming this.
Me: Good for you, see you next time I throw up on my tuxedo.
If the "celebrity" were doing something interesting, that would be different, but all the clips are of them being unconvincing at an uninspiring job, and responding to questions about who they "look like" with, are you ready, "I get that a lot". Hi-larious.
Just because someone's famous doesn't make them comedy gold when you point a camera at their interactions with people. Just watch any talk show and that point is abundantly clear. Tune in to see an actor/actress you like on Leno or Letterman and odds are you'll find out they're dull as a sack of rocks.
To sum up:
Reaction of man/woman on the street to bizarre situation, a stampede of penguins down main street, for example - humorous
Friend pulling prank on friend/relative - humorous
Famous person delivering pizza to home of person DEMONSTRATED to be a fan of theirs - possibly humorous
Gene Simmons saying to complete stranger, "I'm not Gene Simmons, really, I'm not. OK, you got me, I am." - Cancellation.
Whither blogging
I actually remember the first time I heard about blogs. I got some kind of spam email from a person who claimed to be my friend, telling me about how they'd just gotten started "web logging", and what a great time they were having. Now, I didn't know this jackhole, and what they were describing sounded dull as dirt - essentially floating around the web, then publishing where you'd been and what you thought of it. This created the term "blogging" which then got away from the initial concept.
Early on, webpages were pretty much lists. That's what mine was (and still is, since I pretty much quit updating it in the 90s). Here are some cool websites I like, here are some people I know, here's my favorite movies, the books I've read lately, some cool picures I found, etc. Not particularly interesting, and not a lot of reason to ever go back to a site like that, unless it were regularly updated, and so people did. But what do you do to update a website? I would just put up the latest batch of comic strips I thought were clever, still not that much worth seeing. Webcartoonists got going because they had consistent new content, and could get an audience to keep coming back. Marshall Brain's How Stuff Works had new info going up all the time, and, importantly, wound up with so much stuff on it, that people could keep coming back for stuff they hadn't seen before.
But still, there's only so much new content that you can put on a webpage. Enter blogging. You don't need content, you just have to say something. Now, there's a free and easy outlet for everyone out there who thinks they have something to say, no matter how moronic. As a result, the vast majority of all blogs are masturbatory bullcrap. I'm not excluding myself, I'm not doing this for the benefit of the nonexistent reader, it's all about me feeling significant here. There are blogs that actually contain real information, they've become the outlet for people who want to spread the news and distribute what they feel is important info, but don't have any actual journalistic credibility. Most bloggers are the modern equivalent of people who would be standing on the street corner handing out cheap mimeographed pamphlets of rants, or carrying signs about the end of the world, but the bloggers are too introverted to actually go out and face people.
Don't believe me? Go up to the top of the page here, and click on "next blog". I bet you'll find something that isn't worth your time to read, and make you wonder what on earth is wrong with the person who put it there (some of them _will_ tell you what's wrong with them, in excruciating detail). Don't feel obligated to come back to this page when you're done there, you won't hurt my feelings.
So, bloggers are nuts screaming into the void, and good for them. It gives them an outlet, and as I said, I'm trying to complain here so that I stop annoying the people willing to put up with me in person, so it's my outlet too. I just get pissed off over people taking their own blogs too seriously, or other people's too seriously. Get over it, we're all idiots most of the time. The blogs I look at most (all 3 a year) are people telling random stories of their lives and showing pictures of what they've eaten lately. Beats me why this is entertainment, and I wouldn't miss them if they were gone.
Early on, webpages were pretty much lists. That's what mine was (and still is, since I pretty much quit updating it in the 90s). Here are some cool websites I like, here are some people I know, here's my favorite movies, the books I've read lately, some cool picures I found, etc. Not particularly interesting, and not a lot of reason to ever go back to a site like that, unless it were regularly updated, and so people did. But what do you do to update a website? I would just put up the latest batch of comic strips I thought were clever, still not that much worth seeing. Webcartoonists got going because they had consistent new content, and could get an audience to keep coming back. Marshall Brain's How Stuff Works had new info going up all the time, and, importantly, wound up with so much stuff on it, that people could keep coming back for stuff they hadn't seen before.
But still, there's only so much new content that you can put on a webpage. Enter blogging. You don't need content, you just have to say something. Now, there's a free and easy outlet for everyone out there who thinks they have something to say, no matter how moronic. As a result, the vast majority of all blogs are masturbatory bullcrap. I'm not excluding myself, I'm not doing this for the benefit of the nonexistent reader, it's all about me feeling significant here. There are blogs that actually contain real information, they've become the outlet for people who want to spread the news and distribute what they feel is important info, but don't have any actual journalistic credibility. Most bloggers are the modern equivalent of people who would be standing on the street corner handing out cheap mimeographed pamphlets of rants, or carrying signs about the end of the world, but the bloggers are too introverted to actually go out and face people.
Don't believe me? Go up to the top of the page here, and click on "next blog". I bet you'll find something that isn't worth your time to read, and make you wonder what on earth is wrong with the person who put it there (some of them _will_ tell you what's wrong with them, in excruciating detail). Don't feel obligated to come back to this page when you're done there, you won't hurt my feelings.
So, bloggers are nuts screaming into the void, and good for them. It gives them an outlet, and as I said, I'm trying to complain here so that I stop annoying the people willing to put up with me in person, so it's my outlet too. I just get pissed off over people taking their own blogs too seriously, or other people's too seriously. Get over it, we're all idiots most of the time. The blogs I look at most (all 3 a year) are people telling random stories of their lives and showing pictures of what they've eaten lately. Beats me why this is entertainment, and I wouldn't miss them if they were gone.
Thursday, January 7, 2010
Gripe the first
Huzzah, I'm now a blogger, come to the party about 15 years late. I used to have a website that I updated now and then with stuff I thought was clever, it's still out there, but I don't do anything with it anymore. Kinda like the old friends that I lost touch with for 10 years, found again, exchanged a "Hi, how ya doin', can't believe I found you" email, and then ignored again after confirming each other's existence.
Anyway, here is my manifesto (or mission statement if you prefer), which I've got in the blog description and will leave there until I get tired of it:
_________
I'm here to complain, but what's the point, right? Everyone who wants to complain has their own blog alreay. Well, sometimes I just get so irritated that I've got to say it, and my family is tired of hearing it, so even if nobody ever reads this, at least I've said it, and maybe got it out of my system. I might come up with a unique gripe now and then too.
_________
That's pretty much it. Whenever something irritates me enough that I think it's worth mentioning, I'll try to say something about it here. When posting becomes a drag, I'll quit, much like how I lost my first girlfriend, by ignoring her. In my defense, it needed to be ended, but to my discredit, I did it very badly. First time out though, what do you expect.
My role models for this are Emily Litella and the Ranting Swede. I am not deliberately out to be controversial, obscene, or even thought-provoking, I'm just here to say stuff that I feel like saying.
Welcome to the show.
Anyway, here is my manifesto (or mission statement if you prefer), which I've got in the blog description and will leave there until I get tired of it:
_________
I'm here to complain, but what's the point, right? Everyone who wants to complain has their own blog alreay. Well, sometimes I just get so irritated that I've got to say it, and my family is tired of hearing it, so even if nobody ever reads this, at least I've said it, and maybe got it out of my system. I might come up with a unique gripe now and then too.
_________
That's pretty much it. Whenever something irritates me enough that I think it's worth mentioning, I'll try to say something about it here. When posting becomes a drag, I'll quit, much like how I lost my first girlfriend, by ignoring her. In my defense, it needed to be ended, but to my discredit, I did it very badly. First time out though, what do you expect.
My role models for this are Emily Litella and the Ranting Swede. I am not deliberately out to be controversial, obscene, or even thought-provoking, I'm just here to say stuff that I feel like saying.
Welcome to the show.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)