8/27/07

Gonzales, why did you quit as US Attorney General?

Gonzales: I do not recall at this time that I said I would quit, but in the event I did, I want it known I take full responsibility for that decision, though I cannot say it, if it occured, was mine, because I am not aware of having made that decision, and I might not have been part of any discussions about the decision of which you speak. Could you repeat the question?

So, what? Were you fired by your dog?

Gonzales: I cannot rule that possibility in or out, assuming I am no longer the Secretary of State.


But you never were the Secretary of State.

Gonzales: That may be the case.

Or not.

Gonzales: That too.

Thank you very much, Mr Gonzales.

Gonzales: You are welcome. You may ask your question now. Or did you already? I do not recall at this time if you.......

8/25/07

I'm contributing to The Rattler

We'll see how it goes.

8/23/07

High School Musical 2

The success of this ode to the insipid proves the end is near.

Reasoned criticism of the global warming/cooling theories

Yes, it can exist. An intellectually honest person allows the questioning of scientific theories, including the methodologies used to form the theories, without attacking the doubter of the theory, but I don't consider that an excuse for ignorance of the theory, and for trying to over simplify it and then refute it with irrelevant anecdotes.

The very least I understand about global warming/cooling theories are that they refer to global temperature averages as they change over the years and their causes, therefor the existence of weather in any given place not consistent with a layman's expectation of what mass global warming/cooling should have the weather in those places be, doesn't disprove the theory.

Anecdotes alone can't be used to disprove a scientific theory pertaining to a global trend. I'm not so sure about all aspects of global warming/cooling myself, but I tend to favor acting with sound policies, under the assumption that it is valid, regardless of what may be true. What I am sure of, though, is that one can't disprove global warming theory by saying saying the summers are still hot. It's not that simple.

8/21/07

Leave comments

If there's a god, it would be his will.

Another PalTalk reference

Skimming my old blog (full of typos) and found this. Don't remember the content, just noticed PalTal being mentioned.

http://effsrambles.blogspot.com/2005/10/mix-of-nonsense.html

10/20/2005

Mix of nonsense

Try as I may, I just don't feel much empathy for those kids at the Catholic school in Long Island, N.Y. being denied sponsorship for their spring prom and having it cancelled by the school. Sure, it's an important time for the kids, and one can question the fairness in judging people on how much they spend on themselves. But, still, I'm not good at partiality on this one. I despise the existence of beer and debauchery in general, which is apparently a mainstay of many of these events, and the thought of some young person getting lost in the euphoria they might feel in such events, which could be a beautiful thing, makes me reactively uncomfortable and a bit angry, because it could also be that person is happy because they are high. Is it my business if they are high? Well, yes because of the potential for harm that can come about because of their state of mind, which could adversely affect me, but I doubt many of them will grasp that consequences of getting plastered. My nature has always been reserved, even anal retentive if one prefers, but unless the principal, Hoagland, is lying, he has my support, because no school that must keep up a moral appearance should be required to support people having beer parties, and worse, where the potential for loss of contol becomes exacerbated.

In Pal Talk's Social Issues section, which I was just in a few minutes ago, people were discussing bikes and I don't know what else. Maybe I'm old fashioned, but there are just somedays when one doesn't feel like listening to off topic comments.

Speaking of Pal Talk, it seems there's some famous person known as The Social Issues Tattler. I've no clue how long this person has been around. I was once asked if I was him/her. No. Really, I guess because of narcissism, I don't care a lot about him/her until I get a mention or until someone else I'm interested in is mentioned, which has a happened on occasion. I've not read all his stuff (I just glance).

I bet I'm not the only one unsure of when to use commas, brackets and parentheses.

We need more art. Yes, but putting the art in accurately would be good. Weeks back I was watching a cartoon and an excerpt from The Rime of the Ancient Mariner was read aloud in it. Beautiful part, to bad the captions messed up a bit of it. I don't know if it ruined the eulogy aspect of the scene, but accuracy would be nice.

I think someone has to ask this if it's not been asked already: Wilma the Hurricane is angry, so what did Fred do?

Law & Order: I'm getting mixed signals from the show's direction. Is Waterston leaving it soon? He seems to be near ready to have a nervous breakdown every week.

I can't get into recent major news stories. I don't know how I can not be enthralled by the events in Pakistan and the surrounding areas in its neighboring countries, and in Iraq, but I'm just not. One thing has bugged me for a bit, where is the Bono, et al, lead fundraising concert? Speaking of Pakistan's tragic events, I heard some guy on BBC radio from the UN calling donor countries stingy and saying we don't get it. He might be right, but regardless of that, I enjoyed his emphatic nature. Winter is coming. Give more, world governments. Good man, that guy. Whatever his name is.

For sometime I thought my local station was tape delaying the BBC radio. Damn DST to hell.

Lastly, I hate gripes about alarmist media. Of course some reports probably go beyond the pale, or not, but anyone running out and stock piling submachine guns, 50 cases of each conceivable supply, and going into their bunker over how I've seen most stories reported, can, I hope, only have the good fortune, for the rest of us, of getting stuck there and forgotten. Good riddance to hyper reactionary morons.

posted by Eff at 8:34:00 AM

8/12/07

No Blogs For a While

I Don't Know What a While is.

8/11/07

Bull shit phrases

Honor killing:

There's no honor in killing a member of your own family to protect your family as a whole from bigotted judgements.

Reverse discrimination/racism:

Discrimination is a state of mind as much as it is a recognition of power. You can be a bigot or racist even if the effect of your hate is lesser than hatred toward you.

Dishonorable murders and racism/discrimination; I have corrected them.

You are welcome.

8/10/07

Pro choice and the innocence question

I have always been pro choice, not without some discomfort, but I tend to be pragmatic, and don't see trying to prevent abortions as probable for success and social harmony; it could be called the ostrich head in ground mentality, or something more ethically judgemental of me.

But I do wonder about the innocent war deaths comparison to that of fetuses/unborn children, the one which tries to show hypocrisy on the anti abortion side by the war advocation, even rationalization of hypothetical ones, of some of them, by saying innocent life is just that, innocent, so one can't be for wars or capital punishment but opposed to abortion without being a blatant hypocrite.

But is the shared moral basis the same despite the different contexts?

I would say no, but not by any presupposition of guilt of an individual, but because life is consequential, thus the act of continued existence means one must face such risks as death, not because it is just but because it is inherent. The unborn never has this opportunity, and cannot even be considered as part of any enemy group. Those who die in war may be innocent in most ways, but it is still possible for them to be in the way, their character not withstanding.

The appropriateness of war is certainly one of the greatest questions, but will answering it necessarily resolve the abortion and pro choice debate?

I doubt it.

Also, the consequence of the destruction of one life or potential one vs. another cannot be reasoned as the same in probable affect on global politics and national security, especially since abortions are generally not under circumstances of wars and the intents behind them.

Drinking. Why moralize about it?

I'm generally against it, and could moralize, but instead I'll just tell you if you drink, you're probably an idiot and should go choke on your own vomit.

Fair enough, stupid?

Oh, if I already like you, the choking part isn't meant towards you.

The Disney Channel, etc.

I suspect most fans, as well as many of the stars of the various programs on these channels themselves, are born agains who think their Christian youth ministers are the "most awesomest" persons ever.

Of course they are.

8/7/07

Daytime Talk

I have figured out 10, or so, of the most common requirements of a daytime talk show.

1. Be already famous. Name recognition means a lot, so be sure people already know you.

2. The necessities, a crew, a studio, etc., are, of course, needed. Be sure people invest in your show.

3. Have a premise. Will you be soft or tough on your guests?

4. Have a diverse theme, as much as you can handle, but nearly all of them should be about relationships, others should play on fear, and the rest should be human interest stories, especially about acts of heroism.

5. Most of your audience will be women, so too should your guests. Choose women guests with common life problems.

6. Exaggerate your guests problems or let them do it for you, then over simplify them. It makes you look rational.

7. Give a fortune cookie appropriate answer. This item and the previous item let's the often easily manipulated audience know how smart you are.

8. Make sure your guests are either not smart or are not secure in themselves. That minimizes the risk that someone will catch onto you not being as qualified as your celebrity makes your dense followers assume you to be. Your guests will be intimidated by your alpha personality and their need for easy and fast answers to their problems.

9. Product placement. The best way to heal pain is a makeover, and all guests need new clothes, facials, etc. Item 9 is brought to you by Anya's Spa.

10. While being a bit stern, praise your guest constantly. Guest are creatures who need constant positive feedback.

There you have it. You now know how the shows work.

Host (Jane Marshall): My guest today is Melinda. Welcome, Melinda.

Melinda: Thank you, Jane.

Host: So your mother tells me you have trouble with committing to men. Melinda's mom, why is that?

M's mom: Well, Jane, it's because my baby keeps going for the bad boys that only want what they can get out of her. None of them are serious.

Host: Is that true, Melinda?

Mel: Yeah, Jane. But meeting good men is hard.

Host: Melinda, I understand, but this is not a good way to date. You're special and beautiful. Men should worship you.

M's mom: That's what I tell her everyday.

Mel: Thank you, Jane.

So it ends with Melinda getting a make over; going on test dates with host chosen men; getting a prize, and all her problems are resolved. And the glass slipper fits, too.

You're the father. Well, maybe not. Either way, the crowd hates someone.

Talk show crowds are strange to me. In a way, unethical. They largely automatically believe a woman's claim as to who fathered her child, without verification. They understandably boo and holler at the man alleged to be the father when he starts calling the mother a whore (which the men seem to often do), but when the man is proven by dna to not be the father, they cheer him on, but sometimes as he's berating his accusor, even well after such behavior began. So they bought her claim to be sound originally but, despite the fact the dna test may not prove she knowingly made a false claim, as soon as it disproves her accusation, they cheer him on, directly or implicitly, as he insults her whom the audience was willing to give an enormous benefit of the doubt to at the beginning. They see her crying, possibly wondering who the father is, and they find pleasure in it. I have empathy for falsely accused men, but if the woman can never find the father, she has to explain it to the child. I'm more empathetic to that.

Talk show audience are odd. Ok. They're idiots.

8/6/07

Airwolf rules

It's true, and you know it.

Political litmuses are stupid.

I've had people try to label me as far right, a few times far left, and something nefarious. Dear stupid people, if a label is applicable to a person it's because of weight and preponderance, not whether or not the person agrees with everything you say no matter how idiotic. That means you compare the number of contentions commonly associated with the left to those of the right. It's actually logical that way. Besides, few people are purists, and those that are tend to be ding bats.

8/5/07

Pal Talk (repost)

Just thought I might as well repost an old blogging inspired by Pal Talk lo that many moons and suns ago.

Recently in the Philosophy and Absurdity chatroom in PalTalk, the notion that people are good until they are abused, in this case not being listened to, was brought up by Tiffers101. She also contended that we all have some evil in us.

It's difficult to characterize someone as evil. It is seemingly unlikely, but even some one whose level of evil is arbitrarily estimated as 80 % to his good side's 20 % could commit acts of goodness.

For the sake of the arguments, I will not debate what acts are definable as evil, nor will I argue over whether or not the label of evil is justified by the commission of a single act.

Tangible evil, that which can be witnessed, have the effects thereof seen, supports Tiffer101's notion. When committed after an abuse, there exists an apparent cause and effect. The strongest argument here is the absence of the knowledge of nefarious intent before the abuse.

But if we define evil beyond empirical examples, we delve into the notion of evil intent. Without knowing the intention of the abused man before his said abuse, we cannot know if the abuse was the cause of his evil or a coincidental occurrence in advance of the implementation of an intended evil. But this ignorance on our part also makes it impossible to disprove the notion that the abuse was the cause of the evil.

Therefore we have the conundrums of defining evil, by intent or action alone, and the question of whether evil came about regardless of, or because of, an abuse.

http://effsrambles.blogspot.com/2004/05/recently-in-philosophy-and-absurdity.html

Multiple Sources

I tend to think people who say they check multiple sources only check the myriad ones that already advance what they believe, and the ones that don't do so are held to a higher, sometimes unfair in its own right, standard, which means almost assured rejection. Cynical of me, I know. Sorry.

8/4/07

Pride and Condescension

I should respond more to sarcasm directed at me, and can be smug myself, but I don't have much pride and don't see the point in trying to best someone whether or not I'm smarter than him. Besides, what would a victory serve but to invite more people to challenge me? Pride's rarely, if ever, worth that. Most times, I'd rather give up unless I am offended on principle, then I might fight more rounds. I have no illusion that I can out wit most people; not a "real" one, that is.

Nothing Says Jesus' Love Like This

Why should I become Christian?

When asked if I know anything about Jesus, I asked back how specific I should be in saying what I do know, and was told this, "did ya (sic) know that he died for your sins and if you dont (sic) ecept (super sictastically sic) him as your savior youll (sic) go to hell." Very sicy girl.

So, this woman, girl, whatever her age, seems all so willing to accept and promote what most sane people would describe as extortion. That makes me wonder. Are fundamentalist Christian women into public humiliation?

Amen . . . tosplapyoubitch! And she blushes.





Human Interest Stories

I hate them. I hate being reminded of my own limitations compared to the great, morally imposing, ability of some guy who jumped into a river to save wheel chair bound orphans from drowning. What's better than a dozen stories about the everyman hero? Of course, the media interlaces those stories with constant updates on the death toll of a tragedy, while some viewers cry, others look on indifferently or apathetically, and too many roll their hands with pleasure at the chance to indict and convict someone. Tragedy stories teach us much, but they seem to divide and bore too.

8/2/07

At the risk of sounding like a xenophobic earth hater

What disingenuous arrogance the first paragraph is. While the article goes on to name specific species and the possible impact of border fences and related technology on them, it starts off with an absurdity, that everything that lives around the US/Mexico border and could be effected, must be allowed free range. True, it doesn't go so far as to say have no border fences, but that it doesn't is where the clearly dishonest intent comes in, because the standard of species, general, says if it lives there, it has more rights than you as a human, no matter what the consequences could be, have been shown to be, heck, might even be threatened to be. Taken to its logical conclusion, potentially all outside borders must be destroyed, after all, pollen might be hindered in its spreading, so don't make those fences too high. I don't know if border fences are a good idea, maybe no borders has its advantages, but the standard given at the start of this article is way into the asinine. If the activists in this article don't want a border, they should say so, and start suing pet owners who fence their pets in.

http://www.iht.com/articles/ap/2007/07/31/america/LA-GEN-Mexico-US-Border-Fences.php

"...the barriers would threaten migratory species accustomed to roaming freely across the frontier."

Means, Motive and Opportunity

That criteria is perhaps the most well known in determing suspects of crimes, but the second criterium troubles me.

Below are simplified definitions of each criterium.

The means are myriad, they can be resources, weapons, persons, anything which assisted in the commission of crimes.

Motives are the assumed reasons for crimes. Crimes may be a response to offenses, thus the commission of a crime might be the motivation itself, that of inflicting damage or death, or it may be the means by which one achieves the motivating goal, perhaps money, possession of another person, et al.

Opportunities exist when there is sufficient time and ability to have committed crimes.

What makes determining motive so difficult for me is not in understanding what can be motives, but in being certain of the intended motives for crimes. To some, they are obvious, but about when alternative motives have close to as much legitimacy as assumed motives? Or when defendents' claimed reasons for crimes cannot be disproven? Well, the initial answer should be, I believe, to discredit the alternative motives, if one is certain of the truth of the assumed motives, but one should go where evidence leads and be careful to not mold evidence to suit theories. Unfortunately, this isn't a popular notion, that a benefit from an action is not necessarily the reason for the action, or some criminal activities.

Above is why I am a terrible conspiracy theorist, or a terrible thinker, because if my logic is not too insane, what I am alluding to is an important, to me, ethical question: Is it right to convict in one's mind another person because he might, even if indirectly, obtain something which belongs to another, and not answer the question of whether his stated reasons for his action are sincere? Does hypocrisy prove him dishonest? Is it even pragmatic to expect non hypocrisy in whatever the situation happens to be? To me, conviction without even an ounce of concern of these questions is cynical and amoral, and I hope not to be that way, even if I come across as stupid.

I don't like conspiracy theorists.

I know, like the axiom which states absence of proof is not proof of absence, it's not always easy to refute their arguments when compared to that argument pertaining to God, and it's not really my goal to, nor do I assume they're wrong in their main assertions, but my experience with speaking with them on occasion leaves me with the sense that reasonable doubt is not given much consideration. The arguments seem to most often be based in their cynicism and a dubious or terrible level of moral credibility on the part or those they allege to be criminal, usually a government. The conspiracy theorist, taking some fact, usually, and his doubts about the entity he names as the conspirator, argues said entities guilt, sometimes impressively, but he takes it a step further with his theorizing, not simply asking like a dissenter, not demanding answers (as they understandably do), but alleging, which is to me a questionable tactic; is it right to take some facts and understanding beyond the condemnation of behavior to the point of alleging motive and convicting for it, as if any of us are valid courts of law? Even if valid in the end, do the conspiracy theorist's beliefs come from objective reasoning and a search for the truth, or is there an agenda that cannot be applauded by a fair minded person?

How I pretend to think: Gay marriage and guns examples.

What I try to let guide my views on public issues are the following.

My sincerity of interest.

My sincerity of empathy.

Comparison of consequences.

Individual rights.

Honesty.

Fairness.

Humbleness.

The merits of others' contentions.
Etc.

So, because I see no reason to fear them, don't believe any religion has the privilege of owning the definition of the inherently social institution of marriage, I see no rational reason to fear gays or be against them marrying, and feel no aversion to it, therefor, gays should be allowed to get married, the state should recognize it, and those opposed should be ashamed for absurdly thinking they own something so intrinsically natural as marriage, and admit to being paranoid.

Because I believe the right of the individual to defend himself against inteded harm, and because I believe guns to be an objective means of defense, noting the variation of circumstances, I see a person's right to use one to effect his defense as superior to the right of a bystander against bodily harm against a more hypothetical or indirect threat. Put most simply and bluntly, I have the right to defend myself with one if I see it as necessary, even if I endanger others.

Rant: I don't care what your religion says.

Stop invoking it against people. I know many will base their views on religion, but great is the sin of annoying my admittedly arrogant self, and invoking religion in a debate annoys me greatly.

If you oppose gay marriage/adoption; right to choose abortion; guns, etc., tell me why you have reasoned these things wrong, do not insult rational minds with an invocation of your religion as if it is our master. It is not. "God" says so is not a reason. And tradition for tradition's sake is hardly better. I am on the liberal side of the examples given, conservative on guns, for I be so enlightened, but I will not discount the possibility of arguments against them to the point of suppression, but I am making it known that when someone speaks against gay marriage, guns, and so on, and the best they can do is say Jesus, Allah, whomever said so, it really starts to piss me off. Have a better argument.

Sheehan's arrogance.

To anyone who thinks Sheehan deserves unquestioning empathy, you're an idiot who owes me an apology for continuing to exist as a nuissance to my contentment.

I'm against the Iraq war, so I'm not without at least one or more items of agreement with her, but this statement just appals,

"...In what she described as a "resignation letter," Sheehan wrote in her online diary on the "Daily Kos" blog: "Good-bye America ... you are not the country that I love and I finally realized no matter how much I sacrifice, I can't make you be that country unless you want it.
"It's up to you now."

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/18919775?GT1=9951

The word is loved, not love, Sheehan. Perhaps it is a missprint; perhaps your emotions got the better of you, and I hope so, because the present tense of love implies you have always hated us. Which is fine by itself, but to hate and then lecture is asinine. You are not a comedian, Sheehan, so try to think better about what the hell you say.

If you hate someone so much you don't care if

you've lied or made a mistake about that person, there's something very wrong with you. Just something to consider, though it might take a mind that can be considerate.

Sex offenders have higher rate of mental illness

"The findings, published in the Journal of Clinical Psychiatry, run counter to conventional wisdom. Experts have traditionally held the view that the mentally ill are not more likely to be sexual offenders."

Wow, surprising.

So is this: "However, part of this belief may stem from comparisons with people convicted of murder, who appear to have a higher rate of psychiatric disorders than sex offenders do."

I mean, who would have thought?
http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20070517/hl_nm/sex_offenders_dc

Illegal Immigration

I try to be moderate about this, but I do have conservative leanings on the subject. I think some control is necessary, and that the argument that they were here first doesn't hold water, especially given the unacceptable possible precedence it could set. I am not a no borders, share and share alike guy.

Where I am less conservative is in the totality of the solutions. Not deporting is all right with me, and I am not opposed to some amnesty, mostly indifferent. Also, I am for easing the rules for the path to citizenship if they can be shown as unreasanable per the average immigrants abilities to abide by them; fining them is enough for me.

But what offends me is that these immigration rights advocates, legal or illegal, arrogance. Even though I am not for harshly punishing them, I am becoming angry; they show no humility. I'm at least willing to consider such things as reparations, investing in the immgrants' host nations, but they seem to think they are owed. How helpful they've been to America is something I'll leave to others, but the idea that one is owed because they did good after breaking the law is a rather dubious moral concept.

Waving our flag won't help. I'm not about to become draconian on this, but I am getting angry, and I think I have a right to be.

Europe, et al, on America's gun culture.

As should be expected, the Virginia Tech massacre has resumed the gun debate. Of course those in Europe, often critical of the US's gun culture, have weighed in, as is their right.

But a right does not guarantee a person uncritical tolerance, and I cannot give it to Europe on one very important, for me at least, issue: We, the US, are not uncivilized, barbaric, nor are we inferior to you because we have a large amount of guns, or so much, as it is seen, gun related crime.
I am tired of this simple understanding of what civilized is. The conceit is appalling, and the irony is staggering. Civilized is not something only measured by consequences, it is also defined with respectful consideration of the rights of individuals, of the principles of self reliance, self defense, and trust in the populace of a nation to act well toward itself. If civilized can be defined by results, than near any method can be seen as just, so long as it is presented well enough. The irony is in the greater self reliance on neighbor and government that is consequential to more restrictive gun laws, when such trust in US government is so often seen as American naiveness.

Sadly, many in Europe and elsewhere do not respect the underlying principles of why people own guns, or support others owning them. The issue is not about agreeing with gun ownership, it is about understanding it, and not putting people down with sanctimonious, too often erroneous, assumptions about their culture and why they believe in what they do.
I have always tried to make some effort to be fair, but there is only so much I can take. Europe, et al, you have never been, nor shall you ever be, more civilized than me, and my country's gun culture does not prove you right. To believe to the countrary is to prove you arrogant.

Va Tech and the gun control debate

I'm not going to speak about whether or not guns should've been more readily available to Va Tech campus security, etc. In fact, I'm going to go no further on that than to say I'm pro gun. Because there's a time and a place for such discussions. The massacre at Va Tech doesn't have to be a distant memory, it never shall be for too many, but at least a few days should pass before paranoid appearing bickering about there being "too many guns," or about them "taking your guns away" starts. Unfortunately, it hasn't. I understand the public tendency to grow deaf to issues not "relevant" to current events, but it's still rather amoral to make the focus more about what could happen in some hypothetical, than about what must be done. As far as I'm concerned, learning how many were involved with the Va Tech shootings is more important than pre-empting pro and anti gun positions on the incident.

Lawsuits: Does this amendment give too much protection

The threat of lawsuits for reportage of suspicious activities of course can only have a negative affect on public's efforts at diligence:

H.R.1401

Rail and Public Transportation Security Act of 2007 (Engrossed as Agreed to or Passed by House)

SEC. 137. IMMUNITY FOR REPORTING SUSPICIOUS ACTIVITIES AND MITIGATING TERRORIST THREATS RELATING TO TRANSPORTATION SECURITY.

(a) Immunity for Reporting Suspicious Behavior- Any person who makes or causes to be made a voluntary disclosure of any suspicious transaction, activity or occurrence indicating that an individual may be engaging or preparing to engage in a matter described in subsection
(b) to any employee or agent of the Department of Homeland Security, the Department of Transportation, the Department of Justice, any Federal, State, or local law enforcement officer, any transportation security officer, or to any employee or agent of a transportation system shall be immune from civil liability to any person under any law or regulation of the United States, any constitution, law, or regulation of any State or political subdivision of any State, for such disclosure.

(b) Covered Disclosures- The matter referred to in subsection (a) is a possible violation or attempted violation of law or regulation relating--

(1) to a threat to transportation systems or passenger safety or security; or

(2) to an act of terrorism, as defined in section 3077 of title 18, United States Code, that involves or is directed against transportation systems or passengers.

(c) Immunity for Mitigation of Threats- Any person, including an owner, operator or employee of a transportation system, who takes reasonable action to mitigate a suspicious matter described in subsection (b) shall be immune from civil liability to any person under any law or regulation of the United States, any constitution, law, or regulation of any State or political subdivision of any State, for such action.

(d) Limitation on Application- Subsection (a) shall not apply to a statement or disclosure by a person that, at the time it is made, is known by the person to be false.

(e) Attorney Fees and Costs- If a person is named as a defendant in a civil lawsuit for making voluntary disclosures of any suspicious transaction or taking actions to mitigate a suspicious matter described in subsection (b), and the person is found to be immune from civil liability under this section, the person shall be entitled to recover from the plaintiff all reasonable costs and attorney's fees as allowed by the court.

(f) Retroactive Application- This section shall apply to activities and claims occurring on or after November 20, 2006.

But, even acknowledging the limitation mentioned in part (d), the above amendment goes too far. The threat of lawsuits is an unfortunate negative consequence for any reporting of suspicious activity of the kind covered in the amendment. It's not always fairly pursued, but the right of persons to seek redress, whether against government persons or others, should not be legally impeded solely on the basis of preventing a hypothetical risk.

Somethings which are confusing about part (d) (or however lawyers would refer to it) is how such a determination would be established, and when. Part (e) indicates, at least to me, such determinations can be made before the fact of a lawsuit's resolution. I would think, while judges have some power to dismiss cases, the issue of determining if the defendents knowingly reported falsely is something to be dertimined best by the juries of their trials, assuming any such case has the merit to reach the stage of jury deliberation.

While it can be said the amendment serves the greater public good, in the name of national security, the right of recourse through civil courts should not be limited to a single standard, as is apparently stated in part (e). The amendment is too broad, with too narrow of an exception.

My Blog Posts

The nature of my posts are observational. I notice things; I perceive errors; I see faults in others, and in myself; I see merits in faults others see as insurmountable. I was once more prolific. Nowadays my words are less, in too much so is my intellectual capability, but, as something of a trade, my words are simpler, though not readily understood often enough.

At times I am envious of others, at other times I have to wonder why someone allows poor arguments to obfuscate his premise, as if it should take much intelligence to see simple cases of appeals to emotion, avoidances of questions, and whatever else.

At the humblest, I blog to develop myself and seek approval, and at the most arrogant, I blog to show off my ability to reason, and to lecture others' on what I see as their inability to do so.

That is the nature of my blogging.

P.S. I went into the chat rooms, in the one affilated with the MySpace forum, the one where people ask about html, etc., and merely wanted to know if anyone else was having difficulty getting into their blogs. I didn't notice one answer. I only saw people hitting on each other. How utterly moronic can you get. Fucking twits.

War opposition and supporting the troops: I can't reconcile them

I have tried to look at this objectively, and maybe I just can't, but it still seems erroneous to claim to support soldiers while at the same time being against the war they're in.

I don't think being against a war means you hate soldiers. I don't think it's anti-country to be against a war. But soldiers are soldiers in large part for what they do: Fighting wars, whether or not it was started by their nation, is what they do. This notion that one can claim to be supporting soldiers as soldiers, on the predicate of their belief in the immorality and non necessity of the war they're engaged in, while perhaps morally legitimate, supposes a level of importance for individual opinions that is superceeding of all others. Is the premise for defining the support of soldiers to be one of disagreement, even hatred, for the war they are in? So if one hates the war, calling on the soldiers to not succeed at obtaining the present goal set by their commanders is therefor supporting them. Sorry, but that doesn't make sense to me.

I don't attack patriotism. I don't think it's defined by agreeing with a war simply because one's nation's military is involved in it, but the definition of support inferred from the end a war now persons is more motherly than anything else.

Shared Blood and Nationalism in Britain

Two columns, originating from the New York Times, I read in my local paper basically espoused, in response to news that some geneticists out of Oxford have found the bloods of the peoples of Britain to be about the same, the notions of greater unity because of the shared blood, and more respect for the differences among the peoples of Britain, those of Scotland, Ireland, England, etc, but also with less division. Both are respectable views, but, even though I must admit I saw this as a subtle implication, there was a decidedly anti nationalist tone to the commentaries.

There are some who think nationalism has little difference between it and jingoism, and that nationalism itself is bad, but I don't see them as being so close to each other. I don't think moderate nationalism is bad; it can be inspirational to think of how the people before you built your nation, especially of your relatives' sacrifices. Sometimes one's nation can do noble acts for other nations. Of course nations and their peoples do bad things, but that's beside the issue.

I not only am unsurprised to learn many of my British ancestors were probably related before having met each other, I also think it's bordering on silly to suggest this discovery should make a difference so significant that perhaps nations should show less prideful arrogance and competitive ferver in light of it, though I might be reading too much into the columns, and they may very well have meant only to speak against bigotry in its ugliest forms, but nevertheless I see nothing of surprising or great import in the news of a shared blood line. It is well known that many nations peoples copulated with each other, and that nations often don't maintain there original peoples as the majority.

If one is going to have pride in something, whatever it has to have begun somewhere. While I might have roots back to Africa (re: out of Africa theory), I am not African in any other way than a theory. I'm mostly Scottish on my paternal line, and that's what matters to me. I have a connection there that is as real to me as any genetic data can confirm about my connection to nations I might never imagine a relationship to. I likely will never learn the stories of far distant relatives, though I would like to, so there exists no better source of pride, no greater abundance of stories than in my Scottish ancestry. I am British by descent, but I'm most of all Scottish (and Polish on my maternal side), and the English, Irish, etc., best not forget it, or I'll kick their "arses."

Have a good day.

Make it go away.

Anytime someone has a criticism of you, or of those related to you, ignore any legitimacies which might exist in their comments and obfuscate (that basically means to confuse, for those who don't know) the subject they bring up by pointing out "unfair" generalities. Do this even if the person who criticized you is someone whom you respect and believe to be usually fair, but confused and frustrated. Avoid considering your own faults and vow to defeat stereotypes; being defensive is the only way to combat a problem which might exist. Make it go away be saying everyone else is worse or has suffered equally.

You might look stupid to reasonable people, but at least your self image is protected.

Support the mission or you're not supporting the troops. Right wing propaganda? Well, not quite

One of the most common refrains from the so called political Right and moderates of both sides is to say that the troops in a given war must be supported, and to do that, one must wish them success over his opposition to the very mission they are attempting to succeed at. Those are clear dichotomic positions. Which one is the appropriate one to take is a an issue of morality; defined by best national interest, personal ethics, et cetera, but though one might not be obligated to choose one over the other, opposition to the troop's mission vs. the troops themselves, in most cases, one cannot do both at the same time, but with limited context.

The first obstacle I point out is soldiers, while ultimately individuals, are parts of units, analogously like branches of trees, pats of a whole. While commanders of soldiers want independent thinking when circumstances warrant it, they largely want singular thinking; cohesion of movement and goal. Soldiers, being taught this mode, inherently are supportive of the actions commanded upon them, and natural human competitiveness and drive to succeed adds to the general desire to complete missions.
This inherency of thought (the second obstacle), by teaching and assumed by their free choosing to be part of something with known expectations (dangers of combat, long deployments from loved ones, etc.), also means soldiers contrast with those opposing their mission, the third obstacle:

Most definitions of support are based not in the well being of the individual, but in standing behind their choices. Support by avoidance of risks to persons is better defines protection. That definition is one listed under support, but it's not the most common type. The most common type is that which places supporters as being in pronounced agreement with those they wish to support, either by accepting the actions of those they try to support, or wishing for the success of the goals of those they try to support. By common definiton, and thus objectively, standing in opposition to the actions they take and the goals they strive to achieve, contrasts with the definition of support.

Putting this all together, what can be seen is the following:
Soldiers are individuals, but are also part of a greater whole and cannot therefore be separated from it and maintain their definition as soldiers, lest they be solely individuals, a status that, if carried to extremes, is inherently dangerous, and presumably not a mindset they would want to have.

Having the mindset of unity, they likely want to succeed at missions they undertake.

Since the common definition of support places an obligation, for many an onus, of respecting the soldiers' goals, announcing disagreement with said goals which are also part of the very thing which defines soldiers, the military to which they are a part, supporting only their well being over their success is protection of the individual separate to his status, whether that's as a soldier in an army, or as an actor in a play, and so on.
In summation, one largely cannot both support the soldiers' health and denounce their mission, as by inherent prefrences of soldiers and dominant definition of support, doing both is virtually impossible. Thus it's not simple attempt at suppression of dissent, it's a sound proclamation.

But the interesting thing is that it's not necessary to do both. The default negative consequence of lost missions doesn't have to be soldier casualties, referring to those that might result from the immediate quitting of said missions, not the hypothetical negative consequences thereafter. There exists no burden beyond other public opinion for the public to say soldiers must win. It is the right, so long as actions constituting treason and sedition are not followed, of people to put their principles above the success of policies in contrast with those principles, and they aren't automatically wrong to do it.

I do not support the war in Iraq, which means under intellectual honesty, as I try to lay out above, I cannot claim to support the soldiers fighting in it. I support their survival as individuals, thus I want them to live, but for me to say I support them as soldiers entails me supporting their mission, which as I have tried to show, is just about impossible.

This is likely to be controversial. If you read it and have not become angry, to much so to be able to consider it, thank you for your time.

How effective something can be

It is my view that the effectiveness of something is best judged by how well its design can cope with the scenarios for which it is intended, or assumed, to be used for. However, such scenarios, considering their possible randomness, do make it difficult to claim with absolute certainty the item will be effective. Therefor it falls upon the item's capability to meet the criteria transcedent of each scenario.

It is partially from that basis I am pro gun.

Absolutely Simple

One of the most bothersome things to me is over simplicity by the use of absolutes, it is what can be called an abuse of Occam's Razor, as the example I give below is used therein, as a means of contending that the arguments mentioned must, according to those presenting them be right, no matter the differences in their scenarios.

George Santayana's infamous quote, "Those who cannot remember the past are condemned to repeat it," whatever his intention was, is propounded by many sides in debates, most commonly on the use of force, to make audiences believe the positive consequences of their positions and the negative ones of their opponents are absolutely going to happen. What Santayana's words are best used as is not a mask for possible intellectual dishonesty, but a guide for making decisions. Cases are inherently individual as much, if not more, than they are similar, and history does not literally repeat itself, therefor a single absolute answer premised from that quote is like using the same pill to cure every illness with like symptoms, potentially deadly.

The stupidity of hyperbole

How it is that historical association can be ignored, with all the insensitive consequence of doing so, for the sake of using the most severe and recognizable labels is beyond me. There might be a more complicated argument behind it, but absent that being revealed to me in simple enough terms, the label of Zi0nist Nazi is definitely one of the more peculiar I recall hearing. It doesn't even seem to matter if the labels are independently proved as a matter of intent, for correlations seem to do just fine. It's odd how I don't often hear, or maybe I just don't notice, anyone that killed or ordered the killing of millions being so labelled, but if a person is not wholly loyal, or loyal to the litmus tenets of the day in someone's world, he then becomes a Zionist Nazi, or Nazi Zionist, or ZioNazi, or some such things in that person's world.

Are so called Zionist Nazis related to the also so called self hating Jews?
I know Nazis killed more than Jews, and that there is a belief that Israel wants to cleanse the region round it, or at least within its current borders, but the killing of Jews association with the ideology has the strongest historical association. I don't think that's overriden if a case can be made for comparitive genocide between historical Naziism and whatever it's being compared to.

You do not even have to be a Zionist to be called a Nazi, and vice versa.

Debating motivation

I don't like to assign motives. I will characterise behavior, but I don't like to say a person did something because of reason a or b. I prefer to focus on what they did. I am not only uncertain of such things as motive, I think it often distracts from the practical issue of what needs to be done. I don't consider debates courts of laws. I don't feel it's my job to convict people. I'd rather discuss the errors of ways and work to fix problems than speculate, even with strong evidence to support it, on how someone might be a greedy tyrant, or what have you.

Bush and the strawmen

Whether he's being sincere or not, I think some commendation can be given to Bush for not attacking his critics, but why must he strawman what we've said about him? It's annoying having a man that typically cannot comprehend even the simplest arguments against him as our president.

How Will History Judge Us?

That's what's asked by the people behind the Save Darfur campaign ads. Clearly, the implication is that failing to stop the genocide in Darfur, Sudan would have history judge us badly. But how true is that assertion?
Morally, allowing avoidable human suffering is considered by most people to be evil, or something an amoral person or someone primarily concerned with his self interest would allow when favorable to him, though his motives might not be malevolent. But history judges on a broader set of issues, yet we see through an often narrowed and simplified perspective. What we think of historical characters and events is more often than not influenced by the popular descriptions given to them. The effects of which tend to superceed any contrary data, both to our complete understanding and our conclusions.

Sometimes, despite evidence strong enough to constitute proof, we'll ignore aspects of history for our favored views, or minimize their importance and disrespect sensitivities toward them. Hitler, for example, has become for some people either a laudable figure, or still evil yet now acceptable to be used as an analogous comparison to those with which they disagree or hate. Such comparisons usually appear more interested in correlations and the similarity of effects the correlating policy could have or has than in proving motive beyond a reasonable doubt.
Perhaps ironically, history's titles, which are actually our titles, can give us a misleading perception of who people were. In fact, the moniker of "Great" doesn't have a solely positive connotation, but how many such persons to whom that title was given would we find it comfortable to label as such today? I would assume few. But the objective truth is that several historical figures, from Caesar to Hitler, may, by definition, be called "Great."

That title is a powerful descriptor, not intending, but still having, an effect of taking away historical complexity.
History influences the future, but its significance is infleunced by cultures. The help history provides is limited by a culture's efforts to understand it.

It's too early to know how history will judge us if we don't save the people of Darfur, but it's not too early for us to ask ourselves how much we'll care what history says, and how much we'll change its message to suit our world views.

Cynically, I would contend that history would judge a failure in Sudan as a sad and regrettable historical footnote because few of us could handle it as being anything more, as anything we must stop now. The truth is, guilt and culpability aren't always successful instruments for change and action.

My bit of nationalism.

I know many think nationalism is foolish, some even equate it with jingoism, and, while I'm not uncritical or praising of US foreign policy, nor am I fan of George W. Bush, I can't help, as I'm American, being offended by behavior that directly or indirectly undermines my country's foreign policy, not because I support it by default, I don't. It's because of, a, there is a presumption, often afforded to one's government, of the benefit of the doubt, and, b, because some of those attempting, intentionally or not, to undermine US foreign policy, look like betrayers. The reasons one country might support another on an issue then change its mind, or nuance its position, can be many and varied, but I don't see an important principle as being made wholly irrelevant by justifiable changes in position.

France, a nation I've tried to be fair to, was, as I understand, supportive of the US position on Iran and it's alleged ambitions. I don't know by how much, but my impression is that there was support. France says it still agrees with how America wants to deal with the Iranian issue. But, whether Iran or the Us is right not withstanding, after Iran ignores another deadline, France apparently offers a concession to Iran, letting it delay a prerequisite for talks until after those talks (negotions) have begun.

The intelligence of such a tactic can be debated, probably not well by me, but I think it's hard to not see elements of betrayal and lack of steadfastness in such a proposal. Iran defies us, and France offers such a concession for consideration.

Even if you don't agree with US foreign policy, I hope you can understand where I'm coming from.

Support by default.

If a person makes a critical comment about another person, entity or group, it does not by default mean that person supports the enemy, direct rival, or random/pseudo-random alternative of any of them.
When someone has a history of hateful commentary; has expressed an unfair bias for something that exists within the context of those whom the person is criticising; when his latest commentary is blatantly hateful in and of itself, then it is understandable to make reactionary judgements about said person's comments and character.

But when the criticism is not unquestionably hateful, and when it is based in facts, or data a reasonably intelligent person would conclude as being factual, why should the critic have to endure the lectures of some others about the need for balance by proclaiming he has supposed responsibility to mention the failings of related persons, entities and groups? People have free speech rights (well, most should in a just world), so that defense can be made, but what logic says that if you criticise one thing you support whatever it is those judging you say, even though there are myriad things you could support instead, and even though your criticism is not irrational?

If someone makes a criticism about Christians, does that mean he is an atheist?

If someone criticizes women, does that mean he thinks men are without fault?

Please, explain why too many people, as in at least 1, reason this way; that you must be unfair, or hold a hateful opinion about something because you don't mention the bad behavior of others?

Wikipedia

I wonder if I am I the only one reluctant to cite Wikipedia no matter how accurate is has been shown to be when compared to venerable sources. I suppose it is the self governing concept that throws me. Albeit, it should at least be better than a random webpage someone threw together, containing unsourced information. Still, the idea that myriad people can inherently be trusted to police inaccuracies, even to follow strict guidelines on the acquisition of data, without some kind of monetary based incentive or pressure, seems inherently unlikely.

I won't impress you

I don't plan to either. I wish I could; I'm human. Well, anyway, I've blogged a few other places, but am back here now, as well staying in those other places.

To those who care, I'm the author of the dead but still around eff's rambles. http://effsrambles.blogspot.com/ Consider that another archive (which is what I titled it before leaving it).

I probably won't have much to say for a while, if ever. My first series of posts are just going to be copy pastes, if I think they fit here, of my posts in other blogs, which are basically just the same blog on two blog servers.