Introspective Bore

This blog is closed.

2009-03-28T20:30:00.001-04:00

Unless I really think of something, which is extremely unlikely, there will be no more new posts here or any where else I blog. If you want to leave a comment, go ahead. I don’t expect you to though. Anyway, this is pretty much my good bye to the blogosphere.

Homosexual lessons in school and contrary indoctrinations.

2009-03-11T19:57:00.000-04:00

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/uk/article5863871.ece

Off the bat, yes, my inclination, although I won’t assume myself able to defend every part of the controversial curriculum on gay relationships and history that the parents of the removed children oppose, as I do not know the teaching material remotely well enough to exclude from any negative criticism, is to look on those parents as bigots, despite what most, probably all, of them surely see themselves as: protectors of their children from something which they believe not only immoral to exist but to be exposed to. Reason being, I believe their opposition to be far more toward the teaching of homosexual issues in general at primary school than toward what is specifically contained in the learning material itself. While the parents in general probably do not intend malice (so I choose to believe, perhaps too naively and forgivingly), in the sense of being knowingly motivated by hatred for gay people, their actions are still reasonably perceived as being bigotted, as they can only assist in prolonging perceptions of homosexuality as something immoral, to be shunned, with its practitioners to be kept as second or lower class citizens, all of which is undeserved and wrong to advance. For me to believe otherwise, I would have to believe in the claims of an adverse affect on society if there should be further acceptance of homosexuaity, and in religious doctrine as the arbiter of what is moral and appropriate to follow, at least when that doctrine is believed by its adherents as only being interpretable as anti-homosexuality. Addressing the latter, what I accept is that the “baby should not be thrown out with the bath water,” so the Bible, Koran, etc., might have many morally, to me, appropriate parts in them, but I do not accept that because a book says so, or the alleged author thereof, I am obliged to agree with its placement of homosexuality as something shameful, as something to be fixed. As for the obvious to make assumption that if an anti-gay lesson were being taught the parents would not remove their chilren, I am not yet willing to assume they would be inconsistent on the matter of what is appropriate for primary schools to be teaching students, so I am giving those parents the benefit of the doubt in that respect.

There is a third defense, that the parents want nothing in the way of relationships, other than perhaps familial, taught to their children. The inconsistency of that argument is, of course, that familial relationships includes that of parents, which already exposes children to the supposed absolute superiority and naturality of straight relationships, and it beggars belief to think those parents are teaching their children of the imperfections inherent in all relationships, and not placing homosexual relationships as being any more likely to have problems than straight ones. More likely, they are promoting straight relationships as the ideal, affected by the behavior of the couples in them, and homosexual relationships to be doomed by their supposed immorality and unnatural existence, making the character of the persons in them largely irrelevant. I believe this defense, though the least offensive to either side, to be the least honest and likely of the three.

But what interests me more than what exactly is being taught in the class from which the children were removed, or even the motivations of the parents, is how those parents claim to be willing to allow their children to be taught about homosexuality in secondary school (some not at all).

Not exactly.

The reality is that those parents by and large seek to indoctrinate their children to be against any attempt by the school system to persuade them of the moral acceptability of homosexuality, which, too, can, at least for lack of a better term, be called indoctrination. The parents’ hope is that they will have so cemented in their children an anti-homosexual mindset by the time homosexuality will be unavoidable a subject in school, that any level of reasoning within their children which might bring them to see homosexuality in a positive light will be suppressed by their desire to follow their parents’ long instilled counter teachings. Most of these parents simply want to build walls around their children. Walls which they hope can deflect anything contrary to what they have taught them. My hope is that the bonds of those walls are brittle and fail.

titles take too much effort.

2009-03-05T16:32:00.001-05:00

The veracity of conclusions can often be more immediately supported by emotional agreement among people than any logical premise made for them, and the predicate for a premise is often emotional in birth.

Civil rights would be an example.

We oppose violations of them because we feel empathy for those who've been violated, imagining ourselves or loved ones in like situations. The conclusion of the inappropriateness of violating the rights of others doesn't often need to be argued to people with shared principles. But as there exists other interests which have been used to rationalize such violations, the merits of those interests must necessarily be contested. The purpose of the logical premise, or at least the attempt at it, is not then to convince some people of the moral inappropriateness of violating a given civil right, but that the violation is real and not in their interest to ignore or defend, even under circumstances which might seem to justify either. We, however, usually don't need self-persuading arguments for the conclusions we espouse, for they are often the same as the predicates for the arguments we make from them, and both are more than enough validated to us by the weight of our emotional empathies.

H/T to Alison Rosen for inspiring me to finally write this. Then again, she might curse herself for it. Sorry, Alison.

http://alisonmrosen.blogspot.com/2009/03/deep-thought-time.html

Two contrasting statements on the treatment of women during Saddam's reign

2009-01-29T05:04:00.000-05:00

"...Women are back. Women, who enjoyed a high social status and levels of education under Saddam, saw terrible setbacks as Iraq fell into civil war..."

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/28878556/

"...While Iraq in the 1950s was the first Arab country to name a woman minister and adopt a progressive family law, the leadership aspirations of women were mostly quashed under Saddam's macho regime..."

http://www.iht.com/articles/2009/01/28/mideast/election.4-418001.php

Also in the second article is this: "...one allows a rapist to largely escape punishment if he marries his victim..."

I don't know any specifics about the law referenced in the article.

Further information on the treatment of women prior to the fall of Saddam: http://www.iraqiwomensleague.org/human_rights_watch_briefing_pape.htm

Basic cousinship.

2009-01-24T22:56:00.002-05:00

Cousinship between pesons is determined by their common ancestor (the person of whom both are descendants).

There are more complicated cousinal relationships that I make no claims of understanding, but I have figured out the pattern for the common most cousinships.

A shared grandparent makes two persons first cousins.

A shared great-grandparent makes them second cousins.

A shared great-great grandparent makes them third cousins.

As long as both persons are descended in the same way, the pattern holds.

In the case of one person being fewer or more generations separated from the common ancestor, the cousin relation that would exist if both persons were related as the person with fewer generations separating him from the common ancestor is used. To be removed means there is a generational difference. In other words, a grandchild and a great- grandchild of the same person, are related as first cousins, once removed, not second cousins, twice removed. Likewise, a person’s great-great-grandchild and great-great-great-great-grandchild are related as third cousins, twice removed.

When one person is a son to the common ancestor, the other person is always his nephew/niece, then grand nephew/niece, then great-grand nephew/niece, and so on.

Hopefully, if I was clear and concise enough, the pattern can be recognized, and less people will need to refer to cousin charts to understand how they are related if they all they know is who their common ancestor is.

My thoughts on the Gitmo detainees.

2009-01-21T13:41:00.001-05:00

Many of the detainees have never been charged, and some, it seems many, remain detained by weak, difficult to even obtain for review and challenge, evidence.

The fact that some released detainees have resumed, or perhaps begun for the first time, maybe as a consequence of their improper, where applicable, detainment, their terrorist activities, does not convict the remaining Gitmo detainees. Granted, there is a higher probability of guilt among said detainees than exists for the average person, but, nevertheless, greater than average probability without fair trials to present them in, does not prove guilt. Evidence of what they might do is less important than strength of evidence for what they’re accused of doing, as the latter is needed to support the validity of the argument for the former.

Furthermore, weak evidence itself undermines the security necessity argument for indefinite detainment. Assumptions that the remaining detainees will do as whatever percentage of the released detainees who committed acts of terrorism have, is an insufficient reason for indefinite detainment. It is cruel and unusual; excessive.

Some of you want to argue that the Constitution does not apply to the detainees. I’m not a scholar on the subject. I’m not going to make claims as to what it covers, whether it’s citizens only, or any persons within the US, and I’m not making any contentions on whether Gitmo is US soil and therefor covered by the Constitution of the United States, though I think the Courts have established thus far that it is. But I am going to put forth this analogy: If your children were in the same situation as some of the detainees, your natural inclination would not be to say that all of the rights of the Constitution (which many of you would proclaim to be God-given and merely acknowledged in the Constitution) which are meant to protect people from injustices, et al, are the exclusive “privilege” of the Americans, but to adamantly contend they, at least some of them, are the humane principles which should apply to all peoples, especially your son, daughter, what have you, because it would be an injustice for them not to be. Were you a non-American parent, would you say, “screw my son, if the Americans claim he’s dangerous, that’s good enough for me. Afterall, I don’t need to see the evidence supporting his detainment; it’s the Americans who have him”?

Joe the Plumber wants you to know:

2009-01-12T13:38:00.001-05:00

Ignorance is patriotic.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UDlst03I3lk

That's the interpretation I have of this. Frankly, disagreeing makes you a terrorist loving, baby murderer. How did babies get into this, and how am I murderer, you ask? Stop asking questions, you whore for Hamas!

The German Fuck You Principle

2008-12-20T14:11:00.003-05:00

More stories where part of Europe shows itself to have delusions of enlightenment.

"Ex-German Terrorist Walks Free After 26 Years in Prison"

"[Christain]Klar has been in prison since his arrested onNov. 16, 1982. Ten years later, he was sentenced to six concurrent lifesentences, as well as individual 15-year, 14-year and 12-year sentences."

"German law is based on the principle ofrehabilitation and it is very common for convicted murderers to serveless than 20 years for life sentences. Several other former members ofthe Red Army Faction have also been released."

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,470284,00.html

You may recall that, for a time, the maximum Josef Fritzl could have gotten for his apparent crimes, was 15 years.

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,353338,00.html.

That included considering the forced imprisonment, rape, etc., of his daughter. His case, though, is set in Austria.

Recently, Austrian prosecutors were able to charge him with murder, a crime for which he could get life, if convicted. Given that Fritzl's in his 70s, while a life sentence would be right in principle, I must concede that it's a moot point to argue that he should serve more than 20 years, let alone life, in prison. It's also moot because he'll probably be released withing 10 years, even if he's convicted on multiple charges.

At this time, I'm not able to find a story which says exactly when the murder charge was made, but I am quite certain it did not happen at the beginning of the coverage of the case. Back then, 15 years was the maximum allowable sentence for the other crimes Fritzl's alleged to have committed.

There are also two cases of German women convicted of killing their children, ranging in ages from infant to 2 years.

In the more recent case, the woman, Monika Halbe ". . . was sentenced to four years and three months in prison by the court in the western town of Siegen.' Also mentioned in the article is the other case, where the German '...woman in eastern Germany was sentenced to 15 years in prison for killing eight of her babies."

"She had buried them in flower pots and a fish tank in the garden of her parents' home near the Polish border."

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/europe/7759055.stm

There's also this story, which I haven't read in full yet, but I did see this at a glance.
"The twin horrors have many Austrians wondering if their justice system is harsh enough on society's most outrageous offenders."

Let us learn of the harshness that is the Austrian justice system.

"Although both Wagner and Leidolf were convicted of murder in the1983-89 slayings at Vienna's Lainz Hospital and sentenced to lifeimprisonment, in Austria that maximum penalty typically means 15 yearsof incarceration. Like other European nations, Austria does not havethe death penalty."

http://www.iht.com/articles/ap/2008/07/17/news/Austria-Nurse-Killings.php

I'm not a death penalty proponent. In fact, I'm against it. I was even against the hanging of Saddam Hussein, but the aforementioned German principle on rehabilitation of murderers, despite the heinousness of their crimes, and the pattern of 15 years as the actual time most people sentenced to life imprison will face if convicted in Austria, according to the above link, speaks terribly to what at least two European nations' concepts of justice are.

If Iraq becomes a liberal, even stable, democray, it will prove Bush as one of the great U.S. Presidents

2008-12-18T14:15:00.000-05:00

Wrong.

That will only prove Bush was correct about its possibility

It won't prove the war was justified.

It won't invalidate the greater global opinion against this war.

Are those who doubt the security based necessity of going into Iraq supposed to be silent?

Are those who think genuine democracy can only be created from within, not imposed by violent means from without, supposed to declare that the ends justify the means, and accept a stable democracy as the same thing as a liberal democracy?

Nevermind trying to convince the world of the international security based necessity of going into Iraq, let's just have them think it's justified by the democracy that's been created there.

Hell, why even have a reason to believe a country is a viable threat to the world, even itself? Why don't we just throw darts at a world map and democratize the first nation which isn't already one?

This isn't about how great an accomplishment it will be for Bush if Iraq becomes a successful liberal democracy, this is about post rationalizing an uneccessary war and praising Bush for it.

What's the sister's obligation?

2008-12-05T01:48:00.000-05:00

I recently watched a program about a mother with a kidnapped daughter living with her father in Greece. There's more to it, as custody and kidnapping cases tend to go, but the relevant part for me is the fact that the daughter has not only expressed disinterest in returning to her mother, but expressed a desire to visit her older full sister. The father is accused of being a child rapist, his children being the victims. What I wonder is if it would be right for the older sister to seek a relationship with her kidnapped sister when she rejects their mother. I would think the mother wouldn't want to stand in the way of a relationship between them, but should that matter? Could you form a relationship with a sibling that hates your mutual mother?

Note that the last update on this case, that I saw, as part of the program, was from 2005.

I hope they hang themselves.

2008-11-28T15:01:00.001-05:00

Worker dies at Long Island Wal-Mart after being trampled in Black Friday stampede

http://www.nydailynews.com/ny_local/2008/11/28/2008-11-28_worker_dies_at_long_island_walmart_after.html

A pregnant woman also lost her baby/fetus. (Update: the baby/fetus and mother are apparently ok afterall)

They are all guilty of reckless homicide, as far as I am concerned. Since the law likely can't do anything about the majority of them, if any, then I hope guilt overrides them. To think of the misfortune of having such selfish parents, I should think the kids those of bastards are safer being raised by wolves. They're scum and should spare us all from their utter worthlessness. They weren't stampeding to escape anything but higher prices and a reduced selection.

Whatever you may think of the Fairness Doctrine,

2008-11-20T19:26:00.000-05:00

balance and fairness do not exist by its absence, and the Free Market ensures nothing but that the biased, albeit varied, will of the people can affect the content and direction of the media. However, it is because not all people think alike that competition and some semblance of the aspired to goals of balance and fairness can even exist. While It is not correct to assume complete balance and fairness are the default benefits of F.M. competition, that F.M.C. aids in achieving those goals, is probably correct, as a challenge to preconceived notions, as F.M.C. inherently brings, can wrest us from ignorance, and committees whose purpose is to impose balance and fairness can have the ironic consequence of preventing both, as their own ignorances can cloud them from seeing the folly of their own understandings of what balance and fairness are. But to accept competition alone as being what brings truth, perhaps more important than either balance or fairness, about, is to allow yourself to be readily mislead by a flawed premise: Reading a thousand dishonest sources cannot make you more knowledgeable of the truth, merely more skeptical of what truth is, and a thousand honest ones cannot disagree with each other in any substantive way, if honesty refers to what is factual, and not to the sincerity of the opinions of sources, thereby making their value to you negligable, unless you accept them as honest.

All three terms, balance, fairness, and truth, and any of their synonymous words and phrases, may exist within any given medium, not by deflecting to the biased nature of other media, as a means of protection against criticism and scutiny, but by how well that given medium strives to live up to those goals. Fox News, the New York Times, print media, talk radio, etc., any of them, cannot have their fair stories made unfair, nor can their unfair stories be made fair, by the amoral quality of their competitors, nor even by their own internal character. Each source is responsible for itself. If two siblings give both halves of the truth of a matter to their parents, when both know the full truth, both siblings are liars, and will be so even if the parents learn of the whole truth at nearly the same time.

My intent is not to advocate for the Fairness Doctrine, but to express my rejection of the notion that F.M.C. will create what the F.D. can’t either, and that the aforementioned goals can exist in the media as a whole. With or without the F.D., they can’t.

Comment turned into blog post: on improved standing in the world after the election of Obama.

2008-11-07T16:55:00.001-05:00

http://www.alan.com/2008/11/07/suddenly-its-cool-to-be-american-again/#comments

Below is the initial comment I left. My view on the matter might surprise you, if it doesn’t just baffle you instead.

I understand the need to be liked, I appreciate and, indeed, want the improved relations Obama’s Presidency will hopefully give us, and there’s a far better chance of that happening with him than would happen with McCain, but there’s a big but here.

Go back 3 years: suppose you were in Germany. While there, based on nothing but the guilt of your association with America by virtue of being an American, you were subjected to harsh, perhaps harrassing, treatment. No one seemed to care if you were liberal, or even apolitical, they wanted a scapegoat for the bad policies of the Bush administration.

Now fast forward: It’s a month from now, and you are in Germany again, and, based on the same association, you are innocent; you are praised. But, as before, no one knows you, they assume what you are, that you agreed with the election of Obama and therefore deserve their praise.

The fact is, the very premise some used to justify bigotry against individual Americans is now used to heap praise upon individual Americans.

I did vote for Obama, and improved foreign relations was a big reason for that, but I want to be thanked, should I ever be abroad, or speaking with a foreign person here, when it is known what I did, not just assumed that I made the choice to vote for Obama.

To me, these so-called positive anecdotes are insulting, and I can’t help but wonder what bigotry lies behind them.

I want stronger allies, and their peoples to support my country when it endevours to do good. I don’t want to be liked for something before they even know if I did it.

Posted by WFG
November 7th, 2008 at 2:30 am

Were vs. Vamp.

2008-11-01T05:23:00.002-04:00

The werewolf versus vampire debate is either ages old or merely a "Hollywood" creation. Whichever is the case, it is, nevertheless, a fascinating debate. To save you time but also risk the cessation of your reading the remainder of this, I will tell you if I had to choose a side to be the victor, I would probably choose that of the vampires, if for no other reason than the fact that vampires would have more frequent access to their powers than werewolves, thus making the fur-covered supernatural beasts more vulnerable to their supposed arch-rivals.

But aside from the limitation of about only one day a month to use their powers of greatly heightened senses, speed and strength, there is another issue which seems to bring disfavor to the werewolf, that of the origins of both of these evil creatures.

Of course, different cultures have different origins for their versions of vampires, the related zombie, and werewolves and werebeasts of varying kinds, but I will stay with the one's I know somewhat, and point out a very obvious difference between the two.

Vampires

I've heard of two like, and one different, origins for the classic vampire. The first two are that of a deceased person, having died violently, or in some state of despair or unlove, becoming possessed by either a wicked spirit or demon. (I would assume that, if possessed by the latter entity, the vampire that would be formed would be significantly more powerful than the vampire formed by that of possession by an evil spirit alone.) The third theory is that the original spirit of the deceased causes his own corpse to rise again. (The obvious issue that would come up with the former two origins is how, if at all, the vampire has the memories of its body's previous host spirit. I really don't know the answer to that, and have to acknowledge there being some greater credence to the third origin being the most likely.)

Werewolves

Werewolves have one origin in popular culture, of which I am aware: A punishment by Zeus on King Lycan for having dared to serve the King of Mount Olympus human flesh, claiming it to be the flesh of an animal (a pig's, if I recall correctly. How this curse spread, I don't know, and it might be well accurate to assume the lycanthrope monster spread and multiplied from another source. But not knowing that other source, I must stay with the Lycan based theory.

Now for the glaring difference.

Whether you look at the creatures from a believer's perspective, or that of a curious skeptic's, there seems no plausible reason to believe werewolves would be as powerful as demonstrated to be in films. The reason I believe this to be the case is that while I have heard of a demonic component to the creation of vampires (see earlier in this post), I have never heard the same said of the werewolf and its conception.

That distinction adds an as yet unknowable quantity. While a wolf's strength is measurable, and a conversion of human strength to the presumed stronger wolf strength might be possible, there is no way to measure the power of a demon, nor the affect of the possession and animation of a corpse on its power. Now, it can be argued that such uncertainty is also reason to believe the vampire would be the weaker creature, and I suppose that's possible, though I doubt it, but the issue here is that of the probable strength of a wolf made human. of a man and wolf made one. To that question I would posit that the creature, while deadly, would not be as powerful, perhaps not even nearly so, as we are lead to believe.

The demon, if the cause for most vampires, is, for me, the key.

Anyway, Happywappy Halloweenykeeny.

I stink at titles. Some post about the call for others to admit faults

2008-10-28T07:56:00.003-04:00

I believe most of us can handle the truth. But what we perhaps need to come to terms with as much as we do the aftermath of said truth, is not only what comes after, but why we pursued perfect knowledge in the first place.

There is a level of selfishness, whether justified or not, which exists under the surface of what motivates some of these pursuits, especially those meant to expose the demons around us.

Indeed, when we ask the apparent racist to confess, do we then respect him? Can we love without great reservation, if at all, the abusive parent that admits to the suffering he or she wrought onto his or her child? Can we even understand why that child might still love that horrible parent?

Granted, from confessions, some reconciliations could occur, especially if these persons of great evil seek amends for what they've done (something which only their victims can give or deny, and their decisions are what matters most). But at the heart of many demands of the Spade to admit to being a Spade, is the need for its victim to find greater self-worth.

Once degraded by the truth, that which harmed us so terribly, or offended our strongest sensibilities of what is good and fair, becomes pitiful and small, and us, all the more stronger by comparison. Fo it's not enough to believe in the guilt of our transgressors, we need them to admit to their wrongs; to acknowledge our pain; to be genuine in both regards and, most of all, in the guilt, hoping for the existence of any, they feel within themselves for what they've done.

But maybe if we can believe ourselves valuable for the better lives we've lead, whether as a reflection of good character, accomplishments, or what have you, than from the pathetic state of the grovelling wretches who finally admit to what they are, we can live better, less incumbered by our past, lives. But, then, exposing the monsters of our closets might be the only way many of us can move on, and the only way those monsters can lose their fangs, horns and claws and, themselves, move on.

As for the likely question of whether I've suffered abuse. Well, I have my own issues, as many people do, and would not expect to have it compared, judged, or even given sympathy, with anyone else's. So that means my life's my business, as is yours.

Human life is too costly and cheap.

2008-10-26T21:27:00.000-04:00

Thinking about healthcare and the gripes we have with its expense, either in the form of increased tax rates, whereby we're paying for the healthcare of other people, or out of pocket and only for the healthcare of ourselves and a relative few, I got to wondering about how much we value life.

To my mind came these observations:

We think of human life as priceless, yet we complain when an expensive price must be payed for it to be healed; should we not be willing to pay any price to keep intact something so precious? But, on the other hand, we expect payment for the care of something sacred; a notion which is itself understandably offensive, for should it not be a privilege to mend the temple-human, and not a task for which we feel entitled to compensation?

What's perhaps the most telling about the true valuation we give to human life, is that the supposedly exorbitant price of its care becomes all the more reasonable when that same amount is to be spent on things we don't need.

We aren't piceless.

On indefinite hiatus.

2008-10-22T14:33:00.001-04:00

Phony Phelps Phans? On the subject of our appreciation for person athletic.

2008-10-12T15:04:00.000-04:00

This isn't specifically about how legitimate some fans of Michael Phelps are, but of the overall legitimacy of some fan's appreciation for those they claim to admire.

Some athletes achieve great accomplishments, and are of popular appeal to the masses; they are prodigies, seeming to commit few noteable errors throughout their public lives. Other athletes fail routinely in their public, and sometimes their private, lives, but they must ultimately overcome the obstacles of one or both of the worlds, public and private, in which they live, or they could not achieve the same level of admiration people have for them as they have for the prodigy class of athletes.

But the reason for this is simple: Most people will never truely know the latter person, and both will more than likely be seen as prodigies, accepted for the flaws they have only after they have cemented in people's minds their respective greatnesses. Errors can be easy to forgive in light of lost entertainment, so rejection of this person becomes less a possibility when it risks his decision to retire from the world where he is most desired. He is, in a sense, the accordian player's monkey.

How many of us follow an athlete early while he is still developing his skills? How many of us, if we did not see their successes first, would be so quick to push aside, let alone forgive, his vices and criminal offenses? Are all the icons of the sports world pure? Certainly not.

What matters most for the validity of a claim of admiration for an athlete, is to know him beyond the headlines and records that pertain only to what he has managed on the field, and to have done so before he became the masterful player he is now, or to have at least not have accepted him as heroic before any amount of knowledge of his imperfections was known to us.

Records are breakable, therefor it is the name, more so than the person, that owns them for an indefinite time. When removed from his record, the names Michael Phelps, Michael Jordan, Tiger Woods, etc., have no significance to most of us. But those names, all names, have a story, some more even more interesting than the record of any star athlete; others, of no interest whatsoever. But all of them are unique in someway, and define the persons to which they belong more than having the best batting average, most yards rushed in a single, etc.

The question to ask, then, is do you admire the person or record?

As for me, I am really not much of a sports fan, and have never had heros. The person I admire most, is a close friend, a single mother whose helped me a lot, and who I don't really deserve to know.

Hippo's Crazy

2008-10-04T07:27:00.003-04:00

Hypocrisy is the inconsistency of standards, both upon others and oneself. It is the belief that a given set of restrictions on opinions and behaviors applies at the preference of the individual, not at all times, regardless of possible consequences. Sometimes an example of hypocrisy is egregious, other times it's not. Indeed, sometimes a case of hypocrisy, while valid, is understandable, such as saying all life is sacred, but claiming a willingness to let many die in order to save a loved one. Therefore, a mother that puts her child first is a hypocrite if she expressed the moral principle of the sanctity of life, but she is not necessarily wrong for her choice. Objectively, perhaps, but her bias was one most can understand, and they, too, would most likely do the same thing as had that mother. In other words, an understanding of human nature can elicit sympathy for examples of hypocrisy, even with some of the worst possible consequences as a result of such acceptance.

Yet, while hypocrisy exists, there is a rather arrogant assumption made by citing it: Too many of those who claim it are not only themselves hypocrites (which is unsurprising when one assumes humanity is naturally imperfect), they are also under the mistaken belief that others will agree that they were the first victims of whatever act of hypocrisy has allegedly been committed against them or those who they attempt to speak on behalf of. The question of who was hypocritical toward whom first must necessarily be ignored in order for the present complaint on hypocrisy to be respected, especially when given by an obvious hypocrite on the very subject of his complaint. The present complaint on hypocrisy is not, though, invalidated by its authors own hypocrisy, but it does exist as an example of the ludicrous expectations we so often have. Can it be answered who, first, was subjected to hypocrisy? The further removed from the original example, the less we can be certain of the answer to that question.

When it comes to hypocrisy, unless ignoring it very probable risks endangering others, I would rather allow it to pass by. I am not likely the first, nor shall I be the last, victim of it, and I cannot observe by my own observation just who was; I haven't such certainty in what I see and know, and I never shall.

He needs a stinking title for drivel?

2008-10-04T07:25:00.002-04:00

I love voices. I have long had an admiration for a powerful and seductive voice. I have a long held fantasy of being able to orate in a way that expresses great command over the issues, and is incredibly persuasive. I wish my speaking voice was anywhere near as good as my writing voice. Neither is great, really. My grammar is often off, despite how fancy it may appear, but my talking skills are terrible. It's not just because of stuttering, but because of the sound of my voice, too. Yes, I'm beating myself up, but when you sound like a want-to-be-Briton, or like what the natural speaking voice would be of the lead singers of bands you hate, it's rather deppressing, to say the least. I still remember the imposing voices of Ron David and William Hootkins (may he rest in peace). I am even glad to hear David Ackroyd again, whom I loved to hear on one of my favorite documentary series of all time, In Search of History. The opening theme to that series was excellent. On radio, I'll often hear a woman's voice in an ad, and I think of how beautiful she could be. One voice especially. I've tried in vain to find her picture. There was a recent study which, as I recall, seemed to give credence to the idea that voices can indicate physical attractiveness.

So when I was younger, I created, as I guess many have, imaginary characters to act as. Yes, I was less robotic at a time. I had a few characters, in fact. One based on Transformers. One based on the X-Men, and one independent one, the one I want to talk about here. He wasn't a great character. Just your typical uber hero/anti-hero that couldn't be killed, etc. Well, I was around 10 or younger when I created him. Well, his name was a made up word that was kind of a distortion of the word 'dragon.' I briefly used him on line in a community which, in retrospect, I shouldn't have. I also had a rival for him whose name was made up, but that name actually turned out to be the name of a real place in Scotland. I've long rejected the character, and prefer to think of my newer character, whom I consider to be more complex and "human." But, back to the community. I foolishly tried to introduce a degree of danger in what was essentially a pacifist group; stupid, indeed. Now, though, looking back with narcissistic curiosity, I see that people have taken my old character's name, or it wasn't that original in the first place. Either way, it's kind of flattering, but also feels like a part of my more creative side has been taken from me. The name's now being used by someone in WOW fan pages, or whatever they are.

Also, one update note on my mother's passing. We're still waiting on her cremation, so far as I know, and I am getting a little tired of waiting. Naturally, my father is absurdly patient, and probably won't worry about her remains for a good month before knocking heads.

Texas Fucks 'em: The lessons I've learned from this addictive and evil game.

2008-10-04T07:22:00.000-04:00

1. It's overall well beyond me.

2. If you have two high, same suit cards, you'll quickly learn they are useless after the flop.

3. The low ranked mixed suits cards you folded before the flop will be two of the cards which appear.

4. Your high gamble on a three of a kind will be beaten by someone's full house or straight.

5. Your hope that the river card will complete your straight will not pan out.

6. Not only is it risky to attempt a straight, when you try to beat a potential straight with your best possible two pair or three of a kind, that straight you rarely got, your opponent has it. Amazing how that works.

7. Don't mess with Texas. Really. Don't.

Complaints about blogs

2008-09-17T11:57:00.001-04:00

I do not read a lot of blogs, not even a lot of columns, but of what little I have read, the following things bother me.

Note that BA refers to Blog Author.

The obsessive need to be relevant and comment, often in an obvious way, on something which is inane and of little importance. And the commenters to such blogs follow suit. Instead of saying "big deal" they join the BA in a rant about how "fascinating" something is. We get it, Obama and McCain said something "awful." "Awful" these days is can mean just about anything. Hyperbole is not dead.

Blogs that look like fancy link dumps. If I want to go to TPM or TownHall, I will. I can find them, and find it tiring if a blog mainly exists to highlight posts from these sites, with a sentence or two about them from the BA.

Yes, other's work can be interesting, but if a blog mainly exists to post their work verbatim, why call it a blog? If the blog format is more convenient, I understand, but a disclaimer would be nice. The BA could just title his "blog" "Articles I Like."

BAs that encourage activity but give little respect to their readers. So I read your blog and you ignore me? Yes, because I am so interesting, and you are lucky if I don't uninvite you to read my blog, you little worm! Of course. But that goes to a bigger issue and a long held belief of mine: BAs should never give people false impressions about the amount of attention they're committed to giving them.

Thank goodness for women this wasn’t a scientific survey.

2008-09-16T06:21:00.000-04:00

Thank goodness for women this wasn’t a scientific survey.

“Others tend to have a definable niche. Here’s a look at comics whose readership spikes for a particular demographic:

“Rhymes with Orange”: women.”

Now, ladies, so you all know, I believe in you way too much to think you can stand, let alone like, Rhymes with Orange.

The favorites list includes Rose is Rose and Family Circus, and that’s “funny” favorites, too.

My state has such poor taste.

http://www.dailypress.com/news/dp-news_comicssurvey_0915sep15,0,1939835.story?page=1

Regarding the claim that George W. Bush ruined our relations with the world

2008-09-12T10:20:00.000-04:00

While it's hard to argue, so it seems, that he didn't worsen it in some ways, albeit some relations might have been improved under his Presidency, Libya comes to mind, from my limited interactions before 9/11 with the peoples of the world, my impression is America's status within has not been highly ranked in a long time, if ever. The main thing I remember about these pre 9/11 discussions is the commonly stated belief that America, being as powerful as it was then, has no right to defend itself because it's the " most powerful;" sort of "might makes right" turned backwards: might makes wrong.

To me, the notion that the world thought highly of us on a personal level, belies my own experiences. Yes, that's anecdotal and therefore proof of nothing, but sometimes anecdotes are all we have to go on, and not easy to disbelieve. But there might be ample evidence to show we have long been thought highly of. Too bad it doesn't feel as if that's ever been the case.

Let me make this simple and to the point.

2008-09-11T12:51:00.001-04:00

There is no reasonable basis; no pertinent, let alone incontrovertible, evidence to support the asinine assertion that Obama was calling Palin a pig, nor even referring to her as lipstick. Believing otherwise demonstrates a belief that the intestines of, well, a pig can divine the future.

Meandering post

2008-09-02T09:53:00.001-04:00

I’ve been struggling for some time to think of something new to say; to not re edit old posts and present them as something new. I’ve decided that I need to take a break from what is, I admit, half-heartedness at being profound. Looking over old posts, I see the depth of learning disabilities, weaknesses of mine which still bother me. Truth is, I’ve never been very healthy. Long existing chronic problems and bad life choices have contributed to my capabilities being highly diminished. What’s perhaps dichomatic in my own view of myself is that I both crave and loathe respect I receive for my intelligence. I don’t know if that’s an inferiority or superiority complex, but I think both ultimately lead to the same conclusion: the person with it wants to believe he is better than he is, not withstanding comparison to others. Sometimes I think myself smarter than the better educated, other times I envy them, and the latter is much more the truth. Moments of arrogance happen when I have that rare moment when I know my knowledge, more often my reasoning and understanding, to be superior to that person, whom I unjustly find weaker, even if only on one thing, than myself. An aside, I’m not sure what I’ve put down here so far, so this might make less sense than usual. One thing that’s changed about myself is the need to be original, unique, however possible either is, but still relevant. Referring to my blog posts, I’ve almost always commented from a self-developed, but not concrete, system of reasoning. Truth is, I have virtually no idea what I am talking about, but I like to believe that people who read my arguments, if they forgive the dyslexic, verbose styles of them, will come away impressed. They will think that, despite his misuse of terms, his complicated, usually bad, grammar, he has an understanding of abstract logical concepts that is well above average. But, returning to originality, and the rest of the aforementioned terms, it bothers me also when others seem unconcerned and post what seems generic. Still, I respect that as well. I think it’s more a case of envy. I could never make a post of relevance to most people, if the subject is Obama’s foreign policy, Palin’s tenure as governor of Alaska. Some of that is because of personal limitations, and some of it has to do with what comes to me when I observe something and actually remember it, the rest is covered by whatever. People think about oil, I wonder about the ethics of Europe as concerns Obama. People argue statistically for or against guns. I think about the hypothetical of a given necessity to possess a firearm, and the principles of self defense. I want to be original, or at least comfortable with being prolific, even if what I post is incessant, in a sense, but I really can’t be either. I’m reactive, that’s what I am. I don’t start trends, I don’t pick fights, I don’t even get that political. I simply let something trigger me to respond, and I do when the synapses are firing well enough, then I either joke, talk aloud to myself, or go and do other things, until curiousity pulls me back in. Well, that’s it. Have fun, if possible, deciphering that bit of neurosis.

Psychic Probable Probabilities.

2008-08-12T07:16:00.001-04:00

So, as could be predicted, I heard yet another psychic and his usually barely questioning, if at all, interviewer/host (more often the latter, in a rather friendly sense of the word) give a disclaimer, for the potential that the psychic's reading could be wrong (Gasp! I know, right?). I don't know how new this excuse is, I suppose it's not (I wouldn't know, Methuselah.), but the way it's presented brings up a curious issue of probabilities.

The future, the disclaimer tells us, is not "set in stone, it's changeable, determined by you!" Psychics refer to this as your "probable future". Of course, this also means that if it's a bad future, you, as the recipient of the ominous reading, are more likely to act to attempt to change it. But that warning given to you, being near simultaneous to the asserted probability it's claimed to have, must almost assuredly make an alternative future more probable, lest that knowledge be meaningless to know, and if it is, that makes the future certain, does it not? So why refer to the original future as the most probable? Does the psychic doubt his own influence? That's not reassuring. If anything, a psychic should have great self-confidence.

Also, what exactly qualifies a future as being the "most" probable?

The Problem of NPR

2008-07-31T18:15:00.000-04:00

Be it NPR, PBS, PRI, etc., all of these entities have one major weakness in common, they suffer from being comparitively boring.

Put aside, if you will, the issue of a supposed liberal bias, nor can these channels really be defended on this matter on the basis of the quality of their programming and the interesting topics they cover. These channels are not horrible, they are just not appealing to the same audience which conservative talk radio, and television of the more mainstream variety attracts.

And looked at in terms of how they compare to what attracts most people, the public's view of there being more relevance in what Limbaugh, even admitted leftists on the radio, say and the simpler package of mainstream television, the partially public funded media outlets must be forced into the background.

Consider this, to drive home the point. Do you think most people care about the mating habits of Buffalos, or about the biography of a French poet?

Even the predictable redundancy of the likes of Hannity can't ensure that his listeners will not only turn to NPR, and the like, but that they will stay.

I've longed believed that relevance is what hurts PBS, etc., most, not being left wing, as is alleged, and this makes it much more boring that it perhaps needs to be.

Anti-Liberal nutcase murders innocent people

2008-07-28T13:10:00.000-04:00

In front of children, no less.

The vicious monster? Jim D. Adkisson, 58, of Knoxville, Tenn.

So let’s cite this article to see what horrendous things these liberals did.

Unitarians have roots in a movement that rejected Puritan orthodoxy in New
England. Although the outlook and beliefs of individual Unitarian churches can
vary dramatically, most congregations retain a deep commitment to social
justice, which has led them to embrace liberal positions over the years.
Unitarians were among the first to ordain women, support the civil rights
movement and back gay rights.

Treating people like people, and decently?! How disgusting. I bet they don’t even own a paddle.

What other examples of immorality did these leftists show? Hold on to your hats, most righteous non-liberals.

Church members praised Greg McKendry, 60, who died as he attempted to block the
gunfire. Barbara Kemper said that McKendry “stood in the front of the gunman and
took the blast to protect the rest of us.

Yeah, well, well …

Well, this angry little bastard was denied the death he wanted, so now he can live for the rest of his misreable little, hateful life, hearing the sounds of screaming kids, seeing fearful faces, and knowing that the liberals he hates not only refused to be sitting ducks, they refused to let him duck justice.

Title to be determined

2008-07-25T17:41:00.003-04:00

This isn't really about Obama. It's certainly not intended to be against him, and I plan to vote for him, but this is, ultimately, about world public opinion, the moral obligation of its holders, and reaction to the war on terror. I suppose I should place parts of "war on terror," if not the full phrase as I did there, in quotes, but that's tiring to do, so assume what biases you will.

Obama, being both a Democrat and liberal, two associations favored by Europe, et al, has his advantages over McCain, that I understand, but what I don't understand, and not in terms of a comparison to McCain, who is irrelevant here, is why an Obama Presidency should be expected to bring the benefit of greater cooperation that is not really hindered in the first place.
As far as I know, we are already being helped by some of the world's nations and peoples, some of them are even helping us militarily in Afghanistan and Iraq, but I believe in more cases they are helping us in so-called "police actions."

Overall, most nations don't want to, for whatever reasons (and I attack none of these reasons at present), cooperate to the extent the Bush administration desires. What this means is that the primary benefit to us would be, it may be assumed, further cooperation in these so-called police actions.

Bush's behavior notwithstanding, what exactly would prevent the world's nations from furthering their cooperation anyway, as each is able, in international policing efforts, as things stand now?

If they are doing as much as can be reasonably expected, perhaps more, than they obviously aren't failing to assist us in our global security efforts, and by virtue of cooperation even in these policing actions, there is tacit acknowledgement, at least some would admit, that there is a legitimate danger to the world, however it is labeled, and wherever fault for it is placed. Therefor, if the world already concedes the need to collobarate on part of this battle, but refuses to go significantly beyond that, our burden is largely met, is it not? We aren't going to be helped militarily much further than we have been, besides which, I'm not even requesting that we be, and the rationale for more policing cooperation is that of the self interests of the world's nations and peoples, which is surely understood by most of them.

The world doesn't actually need Obama to be President to do more of what it is already willing to do in the first place, and it won't be willing to do much greater, no matter how preferrable it may claim him to be over Bush.

Much of the benefit of Obama is that he won't act bellicose toward the world (thank goodness), and some improvement in relations with the world is needed, so Obama is valuable in that regard, and probably others. But it remains nevertheless a decent possibility that some nation's unwillingness to cooperate further in policing efforts when they are able to, is at least partially a choice based in pettiness, and not solely the fault of American foreign policy and behavior.

Origin of the phrase "Black Hole."

2008-07-11T05:28:00.001-04:00

According to etymonline:

in astrophysics is from 1968, probably with awareness of Black Hole of Calcutta, incident of 1756 in which 146 Europeans were locked up overnight in punishment cell of barracks at Ft. William, Calcutta, and all but 23 perished.

From glancing over articles, looking for specific information, this claim is apparently exaggerated, if not outright false. But what interests me is just who, person or culture, coined the phrase "The black hole of Calcutta."

Here is a take on the origin of the astrophyical connotation of the phrase: http://www.worldwidewords.org/topicalwords/tw-bla1.htm

The nearest I can find as to the origin of the phrase black hole as relevant to the cell, guard house, what have you, is the following: http://books.google.com/books?id=vdvXOxzbiNwC&pg=PA196&vq=black+hole&dq=John+Zephaniah+Holwell+A+Genuine+Narrative+of+the+Deplorable+Deaths+of+the+English+Gentlemen+and+others+who+were+suffocated+in+the+Black+Hole&source=gbs_search_s&sig=ACfU3U1_wvdNpcmY3_U3qbpJGSue6oysKAPPA194,M1

Based on that bit of information, it would seem "black hole" as a phrase, was Indian in origin, if not creation. I'm not sure whether Holwell, or another European or member of the Dutch East India Company, adopted the local naming custom, or if a local gave it to him or others.

I think Father Morris has a point

2008-07-10T08:02:00.000-04:00

I'm not going to argue the Constitutionality of either candidates' respective proposals as to how "faith-based initiatives" should run, but I will say that, if you assume the veracity of the premise of a "church state separation" being part of the Constitution, the skirting, at least, of the line thereof by Obama by virtue of his support for these initiatives seems inconsistent when compared to his intent to limit those groups which are a part of these initiatives, on the basis of an apparent desire to respect Constitutional Amendments relating to equal protection:

Now, make no mistake, as someone who used to teach constitutional law, I believe
deeply in the separation of church and state, but I don't believe this
partnership will endanger that idea - so long as we follow a few basic
principles. First, if you get a federal grant, you can't use that grant money to
proselytize to the people you help and you can't discriminate against them - or
against the people you hire - on the basis of their religion. Second, federal
dollars that go directly to churches, temples, and mosques can only be used on
secular programs."

I agree with Morris so far as goes his belief that such restrictions as above are contrary to assisting in the effectiveness of these programs. With their initiative models design centered around their religions, these "faith-based" organizations need their capacity to control not so fettered as Obama would mandate.

To the question of the apparent inconsistency, perhaps the most obvious question to ask Obama is why even support these programs in the first place?

As for me, I don't have much interest in the existence of the programs, but question how reasonable it is to allow them because of supposed success only to risk destabilizing that success.

Morris' column: http://foxforum.blogs.foxnews.com/2008/07/07/faithless-faith-based-initiatives/

Another Letter to Colmes

2008-06-21T20:20:00.000-04:00

Concerning your criticism of Joe Lieberman

From: Bill G.
Sent: Sat 6/21/08 8:14 PM
To: alancolmesradio@foxnews.com

Does your view of Lieberman as a "DINO" extend even back to before he decided to support McCain and run as an independent Democrat, or was it those two choices that brought you to your opinion of him? I ask because I am not sure, though we both disagree with him on this matter, his support for the war makes him anti Democratic, after all, he was in the majority of Senate Democrats (29-21) who voted on H.J.Res. 114, though it can be said that the Democrats are trying to correct that mistake, so he would arguably be against the party platform as things now are. Also, I am unclear on how liberal his record is, or is not, for that matter. I believe that calling him a "DINO" is warranted by his support for McCain, if for no other reason, but I am not sure it is fair to call him one based on his record before that and his choice to run against Lamont and Schlesinger, etc. Does his record support the assertion?

Well, thanks for your time.

W F G

Old screen name search and my mangled comment.

2008-06-18T13:56:00.000-04:00

Technically, I still use that screen name in at least one place.

http://litochoro.blogspot.com/2006/03/im-sorry-i-thought-this-was-america.html

My comment is the last one.

What concerns me about the McLellan, and any such, book

2008-06-05T15:32:00.001-04:00

The first and most reasonable expectation of me is to read the book, but I’ll tell you right off that I have no intention of doing so. That said, I’ll now begin.

Sources can either be appealed to or attacked. In the first case, a source is assumed as being mostly, or fully, factual; in the second, a source is assumed as being the opposite; and to question a source is to not make an assumption as to its accuracy.

When a source is assumed as factual, it becomes the predicate from which a premise and subsequent conclusion follows.

A source can be used as part of preponderate evidence, but, then, concern over the use of individually false evidence potentially arises: “is my argument supported by falsehoods”? “Is my opponent’s lesser evidence [if such is the case] superior to mine because his evidence is of infallible quality [again, if that happens to be the case], or because I am unable to refute it”?
Why does any of that matter? It goes to ethics, which asks us to ask ourselves what the fairness of our evidence is, and how should we use it?

This isn’t about McLellan, or even Bush, it’s a personal lament I have over how we, in our debates, can favor so readily the ideas we like, and dismissive of the ones we don’t, and how we in turn act as if we are not hypocritical when we tell others to not do the same.

Lazy title: Blog about gay marriage.

2008-05-19T12:24:00.002-04:00

Some slippery slope arguments are only sound so far as there exist few mechanisms to retard or stop the slippages referred to in their conclusions. To argue that myriad, broadly believed to be immoral, relationships will form as consequence and must therefore be accepted because they rest on like premises, is simplistic on its face, and highly insulting to boot. Adult homosexuals may have their arguments logically extended for use in pro polygamy, bestial, what have you, marriage, but the inability to argue from the different predicates for homosexual relationships against the predicates of other relationship, would be the fault of the courts or legislature, not homosexuals.

From the standpoint of equal protection, and how that might be used to assist in the legalizaion of unwanted consequential relationships supposed to be caused by gay marriage, the more relevant questions to a society which disdains them are what constitutional arguments, and what legal distinctions, exist to support prohibiting them.

To the matter of religious freedom, ala the Constitution, it should also be considered that marriage as an institution is ancient, and inherently natural in formation in any society where the mutual benefits of marriage are understood, and where loyalty is favored and may have associations which extend past the limitations that exist in most major religions. Inversing the more common argument that government should not interfere with religion, it can then be argued that giving into the demands of specific religions is favoritism because it prevents other religions from having legal recognition of what they recognize, the moral acceptability of, in this case, gay marriage.

The legalistic arguments against gay marriage boil down to telling homosexuals not that their aspirations are wrong, but that the possible assistance to other groups request for the same level of recognition, means they should be indefinitely prevented from achieving their goal. The moral arguments boil down to, the Bible says so, that’s it.

Health arguments might have validity, I don’t know, but that is for science, allowing for new understandings thereby, to determine, not philosophical and theological argumentation.
Thus have I spoken.

“But others do it too.” “Not all are like that.” Do those comments annoy you as well?

2008-05-07T04:38:00.001-04:00

Am I the only one who finds it highly annoying how some people feel the need to state the obvious about how “not all men are like this” and how some women do “it” too?
Suppose you are discussing religion, and instead of debating the facts and merits of what’s in the Koran, if that’s the religion in question, someone has to interrupt with what the Bible says and how that justifiess or condemns the Koran. Or, if some 15 year old girl wants to vent about boys, someone has to talk about how not all boys are bad. Really? It’s not only stating the obvious, it, at least in the religious debate example, is bad logic, because it serves as a distraction and method of avoidance.

It seems as if people think they are smart for making these points. What? Some liberals are pro gun. Some conservatives are environmentalists. Oh, my mind can’t take it. Thank goodness I’ve been saved from that stereotype.

How much would humanitarian interest and effort change if the US left Iraq?

2008-05-03T04:33:00.000-04:00

I base this question on the notion that US involvement in global matters seems to increase interest in them, so, whatever the security implications could be, I wonder how much media coverage would change if the US left. If it decreases, which I lean toward believing it would, would that also lessen the affect on the public, thereby reducing their activism and donation on behalf of the Iraqi people? By how much, if at all, would this happen?

I don't blame Austria for what Josef Fritzl did

2008-05-01T10:52:00.004-04:00

But its punitive system, at least in the following example, is a joke, and not a funny one.

The father [Josef Fritzl] faces up to 15 years in prison if convicted on
rape charges, the most grave of his alleged offenses. However, prosecutors are
investigating whether he can be charged with "murder through failure to act" in
connection with the infant's death, a crime punishable by up to 20 years in
prison.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20080501/ap_on_re_eu/austria_captive_daughter

Really, what's the point? Well, he likely doesn't have many years left anyway. He's in his early 70s, 73, if I'm not mistaken. I also feel sorry for his wife, who, by the accounts I've read and heard, was truly unaware of what happened. I just imagine the poor woman wanting to scratch her face in guilt and terror.

The only real justice, admittedly in the revenge sense of the word, would be for all of that family to tear the demon dad to shreds, but that would make them into monsters, or teach them lessons they shouldn't be taught, but there's no doubt he would deserve it.

Austria, increase the punishment for rape. 15 years for multiple charges of rape, especially ones that lead to forced births, is not enlightened and civilized, it's flat evil.

Thomas Fraudman (Friedman)

2008-04-26T10:07:00.000-04:00

Why do I call him that? Well, it's not because he is, or isn't, a "sham" environmentalist with views that might not be in the best interest of environmentalism and global fairness, or any such global social issues, etc., but because he's a "fraudulent" man. Once again, a sanctimonious punk like Margaree Little (you have my empathy, Brown University, for being cursed by her presence), because she didn't get enough attention with other methods, so she says, has taken it upon herself to behave as if free speech were the purview of her kind; the obnoxious.

The genius apparently said, according to The Providence Journal, that she sees "[her] act as a way to get a conversation started about free speech at an elite university such as Brown, where the cherished concept is often “rhetoric.” Also from Little: “To tell him [Friedman] that we don’t respect him and we don’t want our tuition going to speakers like him.” What this tells us is that she both has the arrogance to think she speaks for the students of Brown, or that she and the Greenwash Guerrillas are of far greater importance than them, and that her method of free expression superceeds Friedman's right of free speech. She also says Brown is "not neutral territory," and that might well be true. What's also true by that statement, and her behavior, is that she also believes, as judged by her actions, that she may choose who people can associate with. Of course, I'm sure Little would just love to pay for the expense of seeing Friedman in other venues, had she succeeded in "..undermine[ing] his comfort on campus..”

But does Friedman want to punish Little for her jackass display of self importance? No, of course not: "I’m leaving it for Brown to decide what kind of values they want to uphold on their campus,” Friedman told the Associated Press.

Why? Because tolerating her crap makes him seem "Gandhi-like," and it might "shame" her by comparison. Here's a clue for you, Tommy. People like Little don't learn from their own ironic and hypocritical behavior. They accept only what their own sense of pragmatism tells them to; she's a narcissist. Do you really believe not succumbing to vengeance makes you better than her, that you would be violating her "free speech" if you went after her? Horse crap. The only way the latter is valid in a legal sense is if the action you take against her is unconstitutional or currently being, or is set to be, resolved in the Supreme Court. She's not entitled to avoid your wrath; it's questionable whether she was even entitled to behave as she did, given the security implications, which do mitigate free expression, et al.

In Little's world, harrassment by her is free expression, and speech by those with whom she disagrees is meant to be squelched by use of her free "expression," i.e., her behavior is authoritarian, which is ok because she means well; she's a revolutionary, don't you know?

Thomas, take her arrogant premise to its logical conclusion, and show her that free speech is not, nor has it ever been devoid of consequences, and crush her. Become a man.

http://www.projo.com/news/content/pie_discipline_04-26-08_459TRJB_v15.357b15a.html

Outrage! Gay man hosts contemporary Christian music show for youths

2008-04-26T09:05:00.001-04:00

I am shocked and awe shucks’d by Azariah Southworth’s dishonoring of the gay stereotype; gays are supposed to have good taste in music. Mr. Southworth, how dare you! I’m glaring at you, sir.

Vir Gin I A Radio Days

2008-04-26T09:04:00.000-04:00

A good part of my time is spent listening to the radio here in south eastern Va. Below are miscellanious thoughts, observations, and what not, basically drivel, I have about it.

We have way too many Christian stations. If the Spanish language stations we have could be understood by me, more than half would probably be praising Jesus. I really can’t see the entertainment in hearing anyone praised in song that much.

But I do like the hours our local BBN station gives to Bible reading, as read by Alexander Scourby.

I miss Frank Turner. I think he’s still around (I’ve heard the rare traffic update from him). Frank has a voice like the Penquin with a cold.

Perhaps the best known fm dj is Arlo. I’ve not heard much of him, very little, in fact. I don’t like Fox’s format. Cougar Mellen and Boston music is vastly overrated. I can do without Springsteen, too. The last time I saw a picture of Arlo, I was reminded of Dennis Gage, the handlebar moustache guy from My Classic Car. That or he looks likes the tall thinner guy from Tommy and Rumble.

And, of course, there’s Chuck the Intern. Chuck’s voice is really more obnoxious than Frank’s, but he grows on you, and does a pretty good job singing parodies of songs. Tommy and Rumble are overall good, and, fortunately, don’t try to be too shocking. The exception I know of is the Wheel of Interviews, which I detest. Ultimately, comedy radio’s probably one of the most difficult genres.

Probably the best shows for music are Eric sh-something’s Out of the Box and a few other such programs.

If you have BobFM in your area, yes, it is as much of a gyp here.

What I hope attests to us not being too much of idiots, Radio Disney is way up on the am dial, and, I hope, therefore more likely to be ignored. I’m not even sure it’s still there.

As with an over abundance of Jesus obsession radio, we have conservative talk almost everywhere and most of the time. The most liberal person we have is Alan Colmes, who’s not even local. And many people don’t think he’s authentic, or that he sells out. Well, believe either or not, I tend to think some that say the worst things about him are not the best people, so who needs their approval?

For a counterbalance to the typical faire, Tony Macrini is your choice. I’ve actually e-mailed him several times, and, unlike Alan, who routinely ignores me but for on a few ocassions, or he’s just too busy, Tony has treated me decently, for the most part. If you’ve heard his show, I’m usually the Bill who writes in with stupid names like “Bill Billy Willy Williams” or Bill “Guru” William. I don’t exactly remember what I said, mostly because I don’t save the letters. Also, speaking of Tony and Alan, sometimes I wonder if Tony listens to Alan at night, at least the first hour. It seems like they agree on a fair bit.

Well, that’s it for now.

Secret Talents of the Stars: Cancelled.

2008-04-10T15:16:00.001-04:00

I don't mind that it was, I can't even stand American Idol and think its fans should be committed. However, I am curious about why it was cancelled. I believe it's probably a combination of two things: the audience that was and was not, found the concept of already famous people wanting more attention to be arrogant, were envious of these celebrities and has beens having more talents which most of us don't have. "Haven't you actors, athletes, and so on, acheived enough fame"? The audience wonders. On a much stupider note, is it supposed to be a surprising secret that a figure skater is a contortionist

Bill Clinton advises you to chill out, I advise you to grow up

2008-03-31T04:40:00.001-04:00

Many Democrats and Liberals dislike Chickenhawks and Warmongers, but many, as it seems, are acting like Chicken Littles. Try to face reality here. You, Democrats, aren’t going to like everything that comes from, or is associated with, Clinton and Obama. You should also understand you can point to unethical and logically weak reasoning as often as you want and still can’t persuade some people of the veracity and wisdom of your positions. But the worst part of the behavior of some of you is that it needn’t exist if you would not only relax, as Bill Clinton says, but also reject notions of disunity and subsequent chaos in your party. This doesn’t mean you have to go against your principles and choose Clinton over Obama, and vice verse, it means you don’t let your anger take control of you; use it as a motivator, don’t feed a poison vine that might not even exist. Foolish fighting will only help create the seed of that malovelent plant and assure its deadly purpose. If you succumb, your judgement will deserve to be questions more so than that of either of your Presidential candidates.

Some common signs of know-it-all internet dumbf****

2008-03-29T13:32:00.003-04:00

This loud mouth blathering twit stops at almost nothing (if you’re lucky) in his desire to bully everyone into agreeing with him, no matter how half-assed his reasoning is. The following are some ways of telling if you might be the victim of sharing company with him.

He frequently calls people naive, then he calls them naive again if they didn’t accept it the first time.

He ignores contrary evidence.

He assumes his sources to be perfect.

He believes information from any source he doesn’t like is false, even if it can be proven accurate.

He makes judgements based on ambiguous information and refuses to be open about the possibility that he’s being unfair, let alone to the possibility that he’s wrong.

He believes only his inconsistencies to be forgivable.

He sets up abritrary litmuses for labelling people.

He sees disagreement with him as tantamount to a sin.

He routinely distorts and simplifies your opinions.

Beware this incessant crackhead.

A place for everything and everything in its place

2008-03-24T08:11:00.002-04:00

That means you move everything to the front until the new things you need push them to the back.

Guilt by association vs. Judging Ability

2008-03-17T04:55:00.003-04:00

While I agree much of the criticism against Senator Obama remains based in the fallacy of 'guilt by association,' I also do not think that defense alone wholly precludes the legitimacy criticism of his association with Pastor Wright: not because it would be appropriate to assume Obama believes as Wright does with his controversial statements, it would not, but because there does appear to be unresolved, or unresolvable, questions about Obama's judgement. Perhaps the strongest question from this: If confronted with something unequivocably offensive, would Obama be quick and forceful in his condemnation, even against wise or foolish council.

But, on the matter of judgement, it is Senator McCain whom disturbs me most.

People shall debate how over zealous and vitriolic the statements are of the religious persons who are in some ways affiliated with the McCain and Obama campaigns, but to have heard that McCain's argument against a comparison of his situation with Parsley to that of Obama's with Wright, is based in large part on McCain admitting virtually full ignorance of Parsley's preachings, sermons, what have you, and having met him only a few times, whereas Obama at least knew Wright well (knowing, though, that complete understanding of others is difficult to impossible), is a worse case of judgement than the supposed blindness or denial that Obama could be accused of. At least Obama's apparent mistake is analogous to hiring a relative you knew well but over estimated. McCain's error seems like one of a panderer who did not know well his partner, and who acted with political expedience.

To the many this shall never interest

2008-03-13T06:02:00.001-04:00

This is not a Pal Talk blog.

Have a good day.

To those who claim to just be honoring the full name of Barack Obama

2008-02-28T09:17:00.000-05:00

I want to thank you for giving the man the courtesy and respect he deserves, and give you the same by addressing you by your full name.

So thank you, Bull “Fucking” Shitters. Thank you.

I believe in some things

2008-02-26T10:44:00.000-05:00

Including the right to not tell you what they are, and not have to ponder them. My beliefs are so strong (sometimes), that I'd push you under a bus to protect them. You'll not die in vain, but because of dispassionate enthusiasm.

"That'll kill millions"!

At least I got mine, and that's priceless.

Ralph Nader’s Running: Accept it.

2008-02-24T09:50:00.000-05:00

I neither hate or love him; I am indifferent toward him. But I do believe in his right to run for the Office Of President. Yet I know, because ultimate responsibility means nothing to the unwaveringly arrogant, some Democrats and independents will blame him if he splits their votes and costs the Democrats the White House, and many Republicans will thank him for having that potential affect. Well, here’s a lesson in civics, and it’s simple as hell: He has the right to run, and neither the affects on the Democrats, for the defeat his presence may bring them, or the Republicans, for the victory his presence may provide them, have any relevance to his right as an American Citizen, which supercedes the baseless right assumed by the two major parties and independents to win the Presidency.

Nader is doing nothing wrong. If the Democrats lose, it’s the fault of the Party for not persuading their members to remain loyal, independents to side with them, and Republicans to change sides.
Lesson over.

Altruism and intellectual honesty

2008-02-15T12:09:00.001-05:00

Is it just me, or do people often make pious proclamations, but give little, if any, acknowledgement, of the possibility that their beliefs could result, either directly or by making the conditions more amenable, in suffering? I'm not saying hypothetical negative consequences should force you to change your mind, but that it doesn't invalidate your beliefs to admit bad things could come from them.

Alan Colmes and John McCain

2008-02-08T08:20:00.001-05:00

Alan Colmes, often assailed by some liberals, could revel in the discord among conservatives and Republicans over John McCain’s apparently inevitable nomination as the Republican Presidential Nominee, but he’s chosen to not act as his detractors on the left and has, instead, defended the veracity of John McCain’s record of conservatism. While it’s impossible to read Colmes’ mind and reason for doing so, it should be acknowledged that, like some conservatives on McCain, some of those of his own ideology have taken to appointing themselves final judge of all things liberal. Alan and McCain share in being victims to ideological cannibalism, and Colmes, at least, has not joined in the feasting of McCain.

Free Speech! You shouldn't say that.

2008-02-05T07:31:00.000-05:00

Insults, even recommendations to be quiet, are generally not violations of your free speech, as opinions you should be silent are examples of free speech expression; although they are immature, so, too, are insults.
But if those recommendations become demands, and if you are treated with frequent abuse by those making them, during conversations, debates, etc., than they are, in principle, violations of your free speech rights, as such behavior prevents you from expressing yourself as readily as you should be able to.

There are differences in meaning between 'should' and 'cannot' or, conversely, 'have to.'

Limitations on government aside, the arguable exception to this forgiving generality is when the persons expressing these opinions of you have legal or well-recognized authority over you which you and others might reasonably see as adverse to your welfare and self interest to stand against, i. e., the person is abusing his authority over you, therefor he is preventing your free speech rights through intimidation. I say arguable because it must be asked if the person of authority should have his free speech limited by a concern about the recourse he might take against you, assumed by his status and capacity, as opposed to his character. But the generality inherently holds true in most cases. Afterall, you are not subordinate to everyone, are you?

As for which is worse: being told to shut up, for it proposes no speech at all, not even crass speech.

Occasional insults, etc., are not automatic violations of your free speech rights.

How much can you whine about FoxNews?

2008-01-31T19:22:00.000-05:00

On and on. But I don’t want an equity of incessant complacency toward other outlets, I just want my head to be given a rest. If CNN and FN, The BBC, etc., bother you so much, watch something else, or send a complaint to them, but why is it necessary to preface comments to the rest of us with how you “hate FoxNews, etc?” Not every thing needs to be about FoxNews.

Democrat vs. McCain: How should the Democrat campaign?

2008-01-30T20:25:00.000-05:00

Well, it looks as if John McCain has a good chance of being the Republican Presidential Nominee. Mike Huckabee and Ron Paul having even less chance, with Paul having less of a chance than Huckabee.

On the Democratic side, it looks like Hillary has an edge over Barack Obama, but the final winners of either party's primary really can't be known this soon. Can it?

My present assumptions are a Clinton vs. McCain presidential campaign.

If the Republicans do put McCain on their ticket, will his cross party appeal greatly affect how the Democratic nominee campaigns? Should it? What strategy should that party's nominee employ against McCain?

Women are smarter than they believe

2008-01-28T22:54:00.000-05:00

Do you get a lot of flack for this kind of gender research?

I study perceived intelligence. I don't research whether gender differences
in intelligence are innate. That always sparks controversy. But anytime you talk
about intelligence and gender, people will have strong feelings about it. Look
what happened to [Larry] Summers of Harvard [the former president of the
university was lambasted for suggesting that women are underrepresented in the
sciences at least partly due to inherent differences in intellectual ability
between the sexes]. I just let the data speak for itself. Nonetheless, sometimes
I think you have to be stupid, brave or just plain naive to work in this
area. -- Adrian Furnham, a professor of psychology at University College London
http://www.newsweek.com/id/101079?g=1
I am confident to know that my intelligence is just high enough to know every
woman alive, not yet born, and dead is smarter than me.--WFG, dope on the internet.

Liberal Survey: An Alan Colmes Inspired Blog Posting

2008-01-28T12:53:00.000-05:00

Alan Colmes’ liberal status, being often called into question, fairly or not, I thought I’d create a survey for liberals, whether just over half liberal, or completely liberal, so I have.

Please provide short but concise explanitory paragraphs with your answers.

1. What is your definition of liberalism?

2. What beliefs and ideas do you believe should not be part of liberalism?

3. How has liberalism changed, if at all, over a given period of time, and how would you rate that change?

4. Is liberalism your first philosophy?

5. If you were not a liberal first, what philosophy did you belong to before becoming one, and why did you become a liberal?

6. How strongly liberal are you?

7. Who are good examples of liberalism?

8. Who are bad examples of liberalism?

9. What are good ways to argue on behalf of liberalism?

10. What are bad ways to argue on behalf of liberalism?

11. In what direction should liberalism head, and how should liberals assist it toward that direction?

Vengeance rape: additional thoughts

2008-01-18T19:28:00.000-05:00

As I understand it, there exists a type of justifiable action defense, meaning that what one does can be justified on the basis of security, fear, what have you.

But, for that defense to have validity, the defendant must be able to show that the evidence to support it existed, and was known by him, prior to his having committed the action he's on trial for, as well as show that his action was reasonable among and compared to however many possible choices he had. There's probably more to it, assuming I'm even remotely close, but what bothers me is how it seems his supporters will put themselves in his position, and try to act as if they are in the same circumstances as him, when a majority of them could not have his knowledge of the crime which his criminal act was an apparent vengeful response to. He is largely being excused by information known after the fact, information that a humane person would see as irrelevant if they were watching the second alleged rape happening, and they would ask for proof of crime and guilt thereof for the first crime.

Vengeance rape

2008-01-17T15:10:00.000-05:00

I've heard some people defend the step-father's action: http://www.star-telegram.com/news/story/406426.html

Here is my reponse to them.

Most people observing a person being chased, with no knowledge as to why, have a natural concern for that person, for he's both in apparent danger and possibly undeserving of his situation.

Similarly, most people observing a person being sexually assualted, but with no knowledge as to why, feel concern for that victim, a label they would apply to the subordinate subjects in both examples, and with the incomplete knowledge they have, would be correct in doing so. Most people would also assume him to be innocent.

In both examples, an observer naturally feels empathy for the victim, whether he's being chased or sexually assualted, but generally don't for the aggressor because it's not assumed that he'll be justified after the fact, thereby making his action at present appear to be inappropriate to the observer.

What those who've condoned the step-father's action are arguing is that an act which they would normally consider criminal and abhorrent to think of, let alone watch, is good if there's an acceptable, to them, excuse, even given belatedly. After all, if the step-son deserved it, he deserved it no matter when the rationalization is given, right?

That means I could rape someone and be a hero to them, because they would probably not know my actual reason at the time, as long as I give a good excuse later.

In other words, they are inhumane morons.

On Defining Patriotism

2008-01-05T13:50:00.000-05:00

The patriot accepts and loves his nation.

The patriot tries to change his nation out of his love for it.

Where it becomes difficult to exemplify patriotism in these two forms is in reconcilling the conflict between not only their contradictory natures, but between that of two perspectives on the nature and behavior of one's nation, where one believes it is either mostly good or bad (whether in action, character, or behavior), or both, based on the present, past, and probable, or potential, of his nation.

The least complicated premise is that of the conservative patriot. To him, his nation is mostly good in action and behavior. That allows this form of patriot to need only speak positively of his nation. Since he is inclined to see few faults with his nation, he will likely reject attempts to defend against those faults.

The more difficult premise is that of the dissenter's patriot. To him, his nation needs to improve. He has to argue where his nation has failed to live upto its ideals, and how it can return to that status.

Within both forms of patriotism is an internal struggle:

Some conservative patriots are obstinate to change, even retrograding their nation to a time and form that perverts and destroys the most laudable, commendable aspects of their nation, harkening it to a form best suited to the world of the stereotypical neanderthal.

Some liberal patriots try to mold their nation into something it never has been, and something not all, perhaps not most, believe it should be. While their desire fulfilled might make for an improvement of their nation, by some chosen measurement, it is still dubious to claim love of nation as it is while simultaneously defining that nation as something it is not. Their love of nation is not false, it is only not that it is expressed to an as yet non existent nation, a nation of preferred hypothetical form. It is a love not unlike parents for their, in this case imperfect and short of their full potential, children.

What all patriots share in common is the motivation to do the most good for their nation.
The final thought to ponder, for now, is which form of patriotism is the most objective, and if that really matters more than subjective left and right evaluations which might be no less legitimate.

Criticisms of the US; should I just be thankful for any compliment?

2008-01-04T14:44:00.000-05:00

For years, justified or not, I've heard and read far more negative criticisms and insults about the US than compliments, which are often followed up by compliments about the people of the US, about the mountains and rivers, etc., of the nation. Am I too sensitive in thinking that such compliments are patronizing? I think this because the weight and frequency of the negative criticims and insults are much greater than that of the compliments which follow, and because those compliments are often highly vague and broadly applicable. I know some distinction is made, usually, between the people and their government, but I'm not sure its correct to make that separation, given that the US is governed by a democratic system, meaning the government comes from us.

To use an imperfect analogy, imagine that your parents are criticised daily, but you are called decent and your house is praised, how would that make you feel?

Perhaps the worst is being condescended to when I bring this up.

Ron Paul supporters

2007-12-30T15:41:00.001-05:00

There may be extremists in, or ones developing, among you. For Paul's and your own sakes, please rein them in if you find them.

You all may feel, and indeed be, slighted, but even the most righteous anger can backfire terribly when expressed too far . Don't make Paul appear to be the candidate of paranoid people, and be seen as such himself by association. Becareful how far you take your defense of him, and don't make the innocent the victims of your anger.

The Native American Horoscope: The Salmon

2007-12-24T11:21:00.000-05:00

Salmon
Earth: a time to mature.
Birthdate: 22.7.-21.8.
Direction: south
Wind: south wind totem: mouse
Element:
Animal Totem: salmon
Plant Totem: raspberry
Mineral Totem: carnelian
Polarity Totem: otter
Colour: red
Personality: enthusiasm, self-confident, pride, full of energy
Music: Fis
Clan: hawk-clan(fire) function: to do
Emotion: intensive, passionate
Intention: rule
Character: demanding
Positive: creativity, magnanimity, generosity
Negative: arrogance, intolerance, despotic, dogmatic
Libido: insatiable
Good Supplement: owl, falcon
Goal: rule
unconcious desire: stability in feelings
has to develope: abiltiy to judge, emotional stability, tolerance
has to avoid: boast, arrogance, indifference
Life: to find a certain goal
Time: best day: Saturday best time of the day: between 11 am and 1 pm between 11 pm and 1 am
http://www.spiritproject.com/horoscope/native_american_horoscope/salmon.htm

Celtic Zodiac

2007-12-24T10:21:00.000-05:00

I don't feel like formatting this. My birthday is July 29th, which is relevant for the "lesser tree influences" section.

http://www.novareinna.com/constellation/holly.html

Right Brain vs. Left Brain Creativity Test

2007-12-13T07:16:00.000-05:00

Thank you for taking the Creativity Test. The results show your brain dominance as being:

Left Brain Right Brain
62% 38%

You are more left-brained than right-brained. Your left brain controls the right side of your body. In addition to being known as left-brained, you are also known as a critical thinker who uses logic and sense to collect information. You are able to retain this information through the use of numbers, words, and symbols. You usually only see parts of the "whole" picture, but this is what guides you step-by-step in a logical manner to your conclusion. Concise words, numerical and written formulas and technological systems are often forms of expression for you. Some occupations usually held by a left-brained person include a lab scientist, banker, judge, lawyer, mathematician, librarian, and skating judge.

Your complete evaluation follows below:

Your left brain/right brain percentage was calculated by combining the individual scores of each half's sub-categories. They are as follows:

Your Left Brain Percentages

35% Sequential (Your most dominant characteristic)
34% Logical
27% Linear
20% Verbal
14% Reality-based
0% Symbolic (Your least dominant characteristic)

Your Right Brain Percentages
28% Concrete (Your most dominant characteristic)
23% Random
16% Fantasy-oriented
12% Holistic
10% Intuitive
7% Nonverbal (Your least dominant characteristic)

What Do These Percentages Mean?

Low percentages are common in the Brain Type Test and are not indicative of intelligence. Instead, medium to high scores (30 - 50%) are desireable, as they show an ability to utilize a processing method without an abnormal reliance on it. Special focus should be paid to highly dominant (50% or above) or highly recessive (0 - 30%) methods, as they tend to limit your approach when learning, memorizing, or solving problems.

If you have Highly Dominant characteristics, your normal thinking patterns will naturally utilize these methods. Conscious effort is required to recognize the benefits of other techniques. Using multiple forms of information processing is the best way to fully understand complex issues and become a balanced thinker.

If you have Highly Recessive characteristics, your normal thinking patterns naturally ignore these methods. You may only consider these under-utilized techniques when "all else fails," or possibly not at all. It is important to recognize the benefits of all of your brain's capabilities in order to become a balanced thinker.

Left Brain Categories

Sequential Processing

Sequential processing is a method used by the left hemisphere for processing information. The information that is received is processed in order from first to last. Information is processed in a systematic, logical manner. Through sequential processing, you can interpret and produce symbolic information such as language, mathematics, abstraction, and reasoning. This process is used to store memory in a language format. Activities that require sequential processing include spelling, making a "to-do" list, and many aspects of organization.

Your Sequential Analysis

You show moderate ability to organize information sequentially. You are capable of processing information you receive in a systematic, logical order from first to last. However, at times you will process information you receive quite randomly, or may give it only a semblance of order. You are probably an average mathematician and speller, and may or may not enjoy tasks such as making "to-do" lists.

Logical Processing

Logical processing is a method that is used by the left hemisphere to take information piece by piece and put it all together to form a logical answer. When information is received through reading or listening, the left hemisphere will look for different bits of information that will allow it to produce a logical conclusion. This aspect of the left hemisphere is what aids you in solving math problems and science experiments.

Your Logical Analysis

When processing information using this method, you may consider the information before you and produce a logical answer, or you may tend to go with your gut. You may discover that you can "guess" your way through S.A.T. questions about as accurately as you can deduce them. It is important that you nurture your ability to use logic whenever it is needed, but do not neglect other methods of processing information if you hit a logical roadblock.

Linear Processing

Linear processing is a method by the left hemisphere to process information. In this process, the left brain takes pieces of information, lines them up, and proceeds to arrange them into an order from which it may draw a conclusion. The information is processed from parts to a whole in a straight, forward, and logical progression.

Your Linear Analysis

When processing information using this method, you will occasionally feel the need to see the "whole picture" before you are able to achieve results. At other times, you are able to piece all of the parts together in a straight and logical progression to form a whole, which then enables you to understand what you have processing. The information, your mood, and your level of comfortable are all factors that determine your response to a linear processing problem.

Verbal Processing

Verbal processing is a method used by the left hemisphere to process our thoughts and ideas with words. For example, through verbal processing, a left-brained person giving directions may say, "From this point continue east for two miles and turn north onto Bellevue Road. Continue north on Bellevue Road for seven miles and turn west on Main Street". With verbal processing, exact, logical directions are given in a very sequential manner compared to a right-brained person who, in giving the same directions, would use more visual landmarks.

Your Verbal Analysis

You are not a verbal person. When you process your thoughts, you tend to use very few words, preferring instead to illustrate a problem or solution. You often find yourself in situations where it is hard for you to "find the right words." Upon reading or hearing new information, you must first create a "mental video" before you can process and understand the information of your thoughts. For example, when giving directions, you probably use many gestures with your hands such as pointing and leaning, and also refer to visual structures such as "a McDonalds" or "the big tree" instead of street names or exact mileage.

Reality-based Processing

Reality-based processing is used by the left hemisphere as a method for processing information with a basis on reality. This processing tool focuses on rules and regulations. An example of this would be how a left-brained person would completely understand the repercussions of turning in a late assignment or failing a test. A left-brained person also usually easily adjusts to changes in their environment.

Your Reality-based Analysis

The information you process may lack a basis on reality, but it does open the door to creativity. You do not show much focus for rules and regulations and do not adjust well to change in the environment. In fact, upon experiencing change in the environment, it spurs you to try to change it yourself instead of adjusting to it. Whenever you become emotionally involved in project you are more likely to learn and succeed.

Symbolic Processing

Symbolic processing is a method associated with the left hemisphere that is used for processing the information of pictures and symbols. The majority of functions associated with academics involve symbols such as letters, words, and mathematical notations. This process is what aids you to excel in tasks such as linguistics, mathematics, and memorizing vocabulary words and mathematical formulas.

Your Symbolic Analysis

You have difficulty processing the information of symbols, and would rather see the real object in order to understand. You probably hated algebra. For example, if solving a math problem, you need to "draw out" the problem to understand and solve it. You rely on the visualization of real objects instead of their symbols. Tasks such as memorizing vocabulary words or mathematical formulas are more difficult for you.

Right Brain Categories

Concrete Processing

Concrete processing is a method associated with the right hemisphere that is used for processing things that can be seen or touched. It processes much of the information you receive from real objects. For example, a right-brained person is not just satisfied that a mathematical formula may work, but will want to know why it works. A strongly concrete person often finds it easier to solve a mathematical problem by "drawing it out" because it allows them to visualize it. The more a concrete person can visualize something the easier it is for them to understand it.

Your Concrete Analysis

At times, you feel the need to see a real object in order to understand it. At other times, you are able to understand a problem on a symbolic level. For example, you may find that in solving math problems, it occasionally helps you to "draw out" the problem in order to understand and solve it.

Random Processing

Random processing is a method used by the right hemisphere for processing information. The information that is received is processed without priority. A right-brained person will usually jump from one task to another due to the random processing by their dominant right hemisphere. Random processing is, of course, the opposite of sequential processing therefore making it difficult for right-brained individuals to choose to learn in sequence. In order to overcome this, a right-brained person may want to attempt to learn sequence by using colors since the right hemisphere is sensitive to color. For example, you may want to associate the first step with green, the second step with blue, and the last step with red. Consistently using the same sequence will allow you to see that this strategy can be applied to many tasks involving sequence.

Your Random Analysis

You tend to not process data randomly, preferring instead to follow a systematic, logical order from first to last. You have difficulty making "leaps of logic" which prevents you from making unique discoveries, or adapt to change during your thinking process.

Fantasy-oriented Processing

Fantasy-oriented processing is used by the right hemisphere as a method for processing information with creativity. It focuses much less on rules and regulations than the processing method of a left-brained person. Due to the fantasy-oriented processing mechanism of a right-brained person, they do not adjust well to change. Instead of adapting to the change in the environment, a right-brained person attempts to change it back to the way they liked it. But fantasy-oriented processing also provides the advantage of creativity to right-brained individuals, and since emotion is integral of the right side of the brain, anything a fantasy-oriented person becomes involved in emotionally will aid their ability to learn.

Your Fantasy-oriented Analysis

You have a low ability to process information in a fantasy-oriented way. You have the tendency to focus on rules and regulations rather than on creative approaches. You generally do not have a problem adjusting to change in the environment. You may lack creativity, but you do not need to become emotionally involved in tasks in order to complete them.

Holistic Processing

Holistic processing is a method used by the right hemisphere to process information.
The information is processed from whole to parts. A right-brained person, through holistic processing, is able to see the big picture first, but not the details that accompany it. A strongly holistic person may often find that prior to listening to a lecture given by an instructor, they must first read the chapter so that they better understand what the lecture is about. This function is also what provides to you your visual spatial skills. It also aids in tasks such as dancing and gymnastics. Through holistic processing, memory is stored in auditory, visual, and spatial modalities.

Your Holistic Analysis

You have difficulty seeing the whole picture, especially at the beginning of a project. You tend to process information you receive from its parts to its whole in a straight, progressive manner. When given a task, you tend to not bother asking "why," but instinctively are able to do it.

Intuitive Processing

Intuitive processing is a method that is used by the right hemisphere to process information based on if it "feels" right or not. For example, a right-brained person may choose an answer on a test because they had a "gut" feeling and often they will be correct. Another example of this is how a right-brained person will know the correct answer to a math problem but will not understand the procedure of how they arrived at the correct answer. A right-brained person will usually have to start with the answer and work their way backwards in order to be able to see and understand the parts and process that create the whole.

Your Intuitive Analysis

When you process information using this method, you do not rely on "gut" feelings but take the information and put it together piece by piece to form your conclusions. You often look at all of the different bits of information before piecing together your solution. You probably excel in such tasks as solving math problems and performing science experiments, because the intuitive method is not needed.

Nonverbal Processing

Nonverbal processing is a method used by the right hemisphere to process our thoughts with illustrations. Reliance on this method is why it is occasionally difficult for right-brained people to "find the right words" in certain situations. A right-brained person cannot just read or hear information and process it, but first must make a mental video to better understand the information they have received. For example, through nonverbal processing, a person giving directions may say, "Continue going straight until you see a big, red-brick courthouse. At the courthouse turn right, and go down that street for a couple of miles until you se a gray stone church which will be on your right. Straight across from the church is the road to the left you need to take." With nonverbal processing, the directions that are given are extremely visual compared to the exact, sequential directions that would be given by a left-brained person.

Your Nonverbal Analysis

You have little ability in nonverbal processing. When you process your thoughts and ideas you mainly use words instead of illustrations. For example, if you were giving directions you may say, "Continue traveling west for 3 miles and turn north at the intersection." You would give exact, logical directions in a very sequential manner.

Near to fully non judgmental people

2007-12-07T13:17:00.000-05:00

I don't deny that sometimes restrained judgment is best, and I think there are times when self imposed limits are proper, even those forced by higher authorities, but to have little to no willingness to ever judge, not just criminal guilt where prejudgment denies in principle the presumed innocence that should be given to the subject of such judgments, but even character judgment where the truth overwhelms you, is blind and not the least bit enlightened; It's despicable cowardice.

Some persons are scum. Some acts are wretched. Being non judgmental doesn't make one more ethical, it makes one selfish, preferring to show concern, if any, only for those who've done wrong, and not enough for those who've been wronged, all because they're too afraid to stand behind a belief they can't explain.
Stop trying to explain everything, and have at least enough of a spine to call trash what it is, trash, not another man's treasure.

Don't ask me to forgive them, as their victims to forgive you.

Current and old Political Compass Results

2007-11-30T18:51:00.000-05:00

Economic Left/Right: -3.38 Social Libertarian/Authoritarian: -4.31

Economic Left/Right: -3.00 Social Libertarian/Authoritarian: -1.69 (from 11/28/2005, a coincidental 2 years ago).

Bit of advice for those who might be too naive and confident

2007-11-26T12:58:00.000-05:00

Never get into a debate with objectivists and subjectivists about the basis of your morality, because they'll never accept your answer, repeating the same questions over and over: "how do you know your basis is valid?" "Why is your morality better than someone elses?" "Why aren't good and evil simply subjective constructs?" "How can man create a system with which to judge himself when not everyone will agree to it?" "If mob rule is tyranny of the majority, isn't mob morality the same thing?""Who designs the safegaurds against this?" Etc.

While those might not be particularly good examples of the kinds of questions they'll ask, it's not far from there methodology. Objectivists/subjectivists aren't all amoral, they just don't seem to know what morality to follow, as in they can't define it by any external doctrines, and claiming it comes from within makes it virtually worthless for all but for the person in which it exists.

The simple answer is to tell them to bug off or you'll amorally beat them.

Two opposing idea.

2007-11-25T12:15:00.000-05:00

The test of a first-rate intelligence is the ability to hold two opposed ideas
in the mind at the same time, and still retain the ability to function.

F. Scott Fitzgerald, "The Crack-Up" (1936)US novelist (1896 - 1940)

That's one of my favorite quotes, and follows closely to part of my perspective on intellectual honesty, which can be put this way: "The test of a high-rate honest intelligence is the willingness to challenge others' arguments even when you agree with the conclusions they form from them."

This matters to me because I can't find comfort in bad anti Iraq war arguments; bad pro gun arguments, etc.

How anyone could, I don't know.

Iniquities in Paltalk Social Issues

2007-11-13T15:29:00.000-05:00

This is a direct address to two types of participants in the Paltalk Social Issues section of the Paltalk chat program.

The first persons I'm addressing are the anti-Jew, Muslim, etc, bigots.

First, being Jewish; of Jewish descent; and having empathy for Jews doesn't automatically make such a person a Zionist, and doesn't mean that person hates Muslims, Arabs, or any other peoples in conflict with Jews or Israel.

Second, not all Jews are evil, and more than likely most aren't evil, for the simple fact that the character of the individual can't be known before the fact of him demonstrating it, or in advance of the discovery of evidence of his character. The use of a person's stated religion, be it Judaism, Islam, Catholicism, etc., as proof of the moral failing of that person and his subsequent guilt in, or support for, some criminal act is also wrong, by virtue of any examples that belie the assumption: How can all Muslims be terrorists when one can find Muslims who reject violence and co-exist with people of other faiths? The simple answer is they can't, because to convict anyone for crimes with no evidence germane to them is to reason from an invalid premise, made so by the fact that the absolutist nature of the assumption is false. Ultimately, people are individuals first.

The second persons I'm addressing are the anti victim political opportunists.

I don't recall any victims, nor there advocates, asking you to obsess over hypocrisies by members of political parties, in and out of government office, and defame them as a whole with generalized accusations that they commit the very crime, sexually based ones, they claim to want to combat, or even to mock them for alleged sexual perversions. To assert that a party is not acting as it promised to on the issue of sex crimes is appropriate, to retard the advancement of legislation to that end with an uncessary focus on supposed inconsistencies not necessarily applicable to all, is asinine.

Both persons are either pitiable or immensely stupid, perhaps evil.

I find them sickening.

On Isms and Liberalism

2007-11-08T14:58:00.000-05:00

The suffix "ism" refers to one or more descriptive words for any given ideological, philosophical and religious beliefs, whether they are conservatism, liberalism, Mormonism, etc; other suffixes apply as well. When trying to define these terms, we have the following, and likely more, to consider: What is the root definition of the descriptive word intended to encompass the broadest possible definition of the belief system in question; what was the intention of its founder(s); what are its most accepted tenets; what are its most consistently espoused tenets? Answering those questions is crucial for determining not only if we want to be associated with a particular belief system, but for knowing if we both understand and deserve to claim an association with it.
It is not that an erroneous claim of being part of a belief system is bad, it is that claiming an association with a belief system as a cover for failure is cowardly, even when compared to the offensiveness of a mischaracterization of that belief system.

In my experience, the above behavior most often applies to self- described liberals. I will agree that the characterization of liberalism and liberals is sometimes, perhaps often, unfair, and I am not attacking liberalism, but I am criticizing some liberals. What I mean to ask of liberals is that they defend themselves by what they are as they are individually, and not refer back to what others say they have to be by the simple claim of membership in liberalism.

While there might never be widely accepted litmuses to prove or disprove the merits of a claim of membership in any given belief system, my own opinion of liberalism is that it is the greastest of belief systems for its inherent adaptability and apparent primary motivatation of global well-being. To acheive this is to reach saintly worth.

One is not a liberal because he claims to be, but because he is by how he acts.

As a liberal, you are not only free of the constraints of harmful selfishness, but also of equally destructive pride. Intellectual honesty is not a weakness, it is a justification for the pride others should have in you. That is what a liberal is to me, not arrogant but humble, and not certain but inquisitive, and has the final goal of making the world better.

Justice Denied?

2007-10-31T08:33:00.000-04:00

Or justice not settled. Whichever way you define it, it seems to me that if a kid did start one of the California fires, either one is better than ever claiming "justice well served," and how can it be? How can the punishments most equitable to the pain of the victims of that fire be given to a child? Even a fraction of that punishment might be seen as injustice due to the age and assumed mental capabilities of most children. This is a truly asinine situation. Nothing uncruel can be done to that child and his family and still be a fit punishment for the crime, because if it fits the crime, it must be cruel.
http://ap.google.com/article/ALeqM5hzNKToSBGU9gikCAGXs4-ePFG2FAD8SK5SN80

The circumstances alone reason for some mercy, but, still, it's highly ridiculous.

I swear, anyone who says,"but he's just a kid should," be punched upside the head. We know "he's just a kid". Just let some of us complain.

Pete Stark Controversy

2007-10-26T05:16:00.001-04:00

Not much to say on it; not as if he said anything I haven't heard before. Not withstanding his past comments, real, alleged or false, yes, I forgive him. What bother's me more is that he hopes to "become as insignificant as I (Pete Stark) should be" by his apologizing. Hate what he said if you feel justified in doing so, but his attitude about himself, giving him the benefit of the doubt as to his sincerety, doesn't seem very healthy to me. Besides, how insignificant do constituents want their respective Congressmen to be? I assume most would say not very.

People who like torture films

2007-10-10T17:50:00.001-04:00

Such as the Saw series. You're amoral or worse and you suck. Choke on that "fascist" view.

On Point, women in pursuit of men less successful than them

2007-10-09T11:18:00.000-04:00

On Point, a public radio program I heard, about a week ago, was discussing the topic of how some successful women can't form lasting relationships with men of a lower economic and social status than them. The two women interviewed for their personal experiences as successful women who've dated "down," also spoke of dating at "their level," and their difficulties with men even at that standing." While I don't have a ready explanation for that, the insecurity around successful women that the men in the lower standing category have, does have a reasonable, I believe, explanation.

I thought, for a moment, about whether I would feel insecure around successful women, and it took me little time to admit to myself that I would. The reason, and this is something I believe affects a lot of male thinking, is that I believe men tend to value themselves in a somewhat different way than women. My theory is this: Men value themselves by accomplishments, with tangible proofs thereof. That means if we claim to be highly intelligent, we expect that you, a successful woman, will want to see advanced degrees and papers we authored published in respected journals of science, etc. Also, if we claim to be athletic, you'd want not only see us in action, but our trophies for games won and played well. Those things we see as proof of our value. For women, qualities such as charm, character, sense of humor, etc., take on a higher level of importance earlier than they do for men.

It's probably true of many misperceptions about other persons that it's assumed they will think as we do. Believing this, it's not hard to understand why some men can't cope with more successful women, as they might find it very difficult to believe women who have options would go for the lower class men, let alone stay with them.

Alternatively, some men might just only like weak women. Be that as it may, I do think my theory, original or not, has merit; is at least plausible.

Only I may violate it, says the arrogant ass

2007-10-04T13:47:00.001-04:00

It always amazes me, no, it annoys me, how a person can complain, even if justifiably, about one person’s violating the rights of others while effectively doing the same thing, and they do not know they are doing it.

Here are two examples.

I’m strongly opposed to the anti-snitching movement (anyone with a decent bone in his body would be). There are understandable reasons, having to do with personal and familial safety, for why some persons might not snitch when they witness crimes and suspicious activities, but a broad stand against snitching, and not just to protect junkies who qualify as being harmless, but possible murderers, rapists, etc., is absurd.

One of the main defenses of this is the claim that the police are corrupt. That’s true in some cases, but what bothers me more than the generalization some form from their anecdotal experiences or rumors , is that some of those who complain about the police abuses, use that as a justification to not only refuse to assist in bringing justice to the victims of criminal acts, but also to advocate vigilante justice, which is inherently going to violate the rights of those suspected of criminal activities, whom do, in fact, have rights.

” it’s wrong for the police to beat people up, but, by golly, if I think someone did something illegal, it’s perfectly ok for me and my buddies to beat that person up”.

Well, to enlighten, if you complain about violations of laws and then violate the law yourself, you’re a hypocrite, and not in a tolerable way. That kind of violation wouldn’t fall under the banner of civil disobedience either, not without making that strategy for change look insane.
The second example, and here’s where I risk the neocon label, is with the notion of Impeachment (of President Bush in this case, but the following holds true for any person facing trial).

My opposition isn’t with Impeaching Bush, I couldn’t care less if that’s done. If there’s a case to be made, make it. Obviously, if not, it can be argued that Impeaching him would be wasteful but for giving some people a sense of appeased vengeance, but that’s really of limited value if the goal is to remove Bush from office. With all that said, I’ll go onto what does bother me.

Given the anger, the justifications for which aside, people have over Bush, I wondered what they would think if Bush were Impeached but not convicted; would that be justice? According to most people I asked, the answer was no. Well, from a subjective standpoint, that’s true for them, and I might form the same opinion. But what they fail to realize with their contention, is that they aren’t only supposing only one outcome can be, which makes their understanding of impeachment minimal, at best, but that there’s a hypocrisy (again using a double-standard with respect to law, specifically the US Constitution), here also: According to their line of reasoning, Bush violates the Constitution, literally and in spirit. Therefore, we should ignore, before the fact, the outcome of a Constitutional procedure, Impeachment if we don’t like it (just as Bush is alleged to ignore and violate the Constitution), and proclaim what it should be. In other words, a trial is moot; there goes the principle of assumed innocense until convicted by a fair and impartial jury or judge, or, in this case, the Senate (no comment).

If some want him out that bad, they should start a revolution, or at least admit to being hypocrites.

When opportunity knocks, what should you do?

2007-09-29T12:06:00.000-04:00

It baffles me how the cynical, the mistrusting, though their life experiences might give them good reason to be doubtful, when their "enemies" (which tend to be many, real or imagined), offer to comprimise, even change their ways, those cynical people too often don't try to civily push for more change from them, more help for one issue or another, but try to attack these so - called enemies.

Does the probability of success override the existence of a chance to succeed, even if slim?

Just what good is expressed disbelief and the belittlement that might accompany it, if opportunities for change might be few?

That some people earn mistrust is true, but it misses the point entirely. If there's good to be done, those who can most effect it, must be persuaded, not assailed; at least not only assailed.

PalTalk Tragedy

2007-09-25T16:29:00.000-04:00

I'm terrible with words and affection, but I do sincerely hope SrDude is doing alright. Please visit here and express in there, as well as in the other places the post links to, some words of support.

Thank you.

Does it matter if Ahmadinejad is one of "them"?

2007-09-23T17:15:00.000-04:00

The Iran Hostage Crisis of '79-81 has been the subject of some dispute, even leading to an investigation by the State Department, with no unananimous conclusion as to whether or not Ahmadinejad was one of the hostage takers, or at least present with the hostages, but, other than giving the surviving hostages some sense of justice, hopefully, should Ahmadinejad be guilty of the accusations of some of them, what purpose does it serve to give a forum to the hostages of that time? I dare say it's to make targetting Iran for selected attacks or full scale war more palatable.

If there's a case to be made for that, I would hope the claims of undermining our present mission in Iraq, even though the war there is unpopular, would be considered a much stronger case to that end, and that further demonization of a world leader would not be necessary. The world is complex, and, while Ahmadinejad might not be a saint, if we go into Iran with simplistic notions of Good vs. Evil, who knows what the long term consequences will be, and just how far we'll go to slay this marketed devil Ahmadinejad?

I actually say and ask stuff like this

2007-09-19T09:42:00.000-04:00

Do you like bands like AFI, MCR, etc? If so, why do you hate Jesus?

Jesus cries at your bad taste. Stop dissing on Jesus! Even militant
atheists are ashamed of you.

Ended Rattler Membership

2007-09-17T17:32:00.000-04:00

I will comment there when the mood strikes me, but I didn't fit in as a team member.

War is not a game for vengeance and pride

2007-09-07T08:31:00.001-04:00

Once again, the tiresome argument that it's somehow our obligation to finish what our soldiers fought hard in no matter the cost, is being bandied about. This time by some group called Freedom Watch. They play to emotion, putting out the sympathetic image of wounded veterans, reminding us of their sacrifices, and then telling us wars should be continued for the reasons typically given by some on the right; they also appear to be blaming Iraq for 9/11. It's the usual bull. I agree with providing medical care to these soldiers, and I am thankful for their bravery, but we shouldn't fight wars in the name of their sacrifices, that's foolish and deadly.

Political Views: 4 for 4

2007-09-06T21:55:00.000-04:00

Perpetually incomplete general list. I will give me leanings only, not explanations, degrees of belief, or solutions.

Pro list:

Guns

Large US military

Tough environmental regulations

Choice on abortion

Anti list:

Death penalty

Iraq war

Sabre rattling Iran

Zionism

PS. To the super morons, being in favor of a large US military doesn't mean I am in favor of imperialism, etc.

Suppose Iran really is a threat, even an imminent one

2007-09-05T19:00:00.000-04:00

Then Bush's severe lack of credibility, thanks in no small part to his smug incompetence, has put the world at risk.

I really don't know if Iran is a threat, but I do know that fouling up in Iraq doesn't prove Iran isn't, but it does beg the question, what fools would gladly trust him to deal with Iran?

Anti American people or their government?

2007-09-03T09:47:00.000-04:00

Normally, I am tolerant of negative views about my country. I don't like that they exist (I believe most people have some nationalist sentiment toward their home nation, wanting it to be favorably perceived), but, knowing arrogance is an enemy of truth, I don't wish to engage in defenses of my nations where I might exaggerate its good deeds, and downplay its bad. I do, though, wonder if the negative views are fair in the relevant contexts to the given issues they come from. My way of dealing with it is usually self deprecating sarcasm.

What actually bothers me more than the negativity, which is prevailing, but more depressing than irritating, is what I consider two be the major offenses to intellectual honestly, and thus respectful criticism.

First, The United States is a constitutional republic: A government of public representatives, all of whom are constrained by constitutions, state and federal, as they are and may be amended. Although not loyal to the literal definition of the term, it is what many people have come to accept as a form of "democracy."

Understanding that, the distinction between the people of America and their government, so as to give some absolution to the former, is peculiar, but often not strongly believed anyway, apparently, by those trying to seperate the two. Either American indifference, apathy, laziness, etc., is very much responsible for their government's actions, or they are pawns who can do nothing.

The second offense is an insincere compliment: While sincerity isn't always easy to ascertain, sweet words which apply broadly, and have little or nothing to do with the history, including any positive actions by America's government, do not come across as complimentary of America, but to friendly people in general.

Saying you "love America's mountain ranges," after making myriad condemnations of the nation, even praising its people's character, is not equitable.

If the intent is to not come across as anti American people, talking well of what they've done as a nation, not just their hospitality and thier nation's geological make up, goes a long way. Otherwise, it would show more respect to not bother.

Gonzales, why did you quit as US Attorney General?

2007-08-27T19:23:00.000-04:00

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.......

I'm contributing to The Rattler

2007-08-25T19:23:00.000-04:00

We'll see how it goes.

High School Musical 2

2007-08-23T03:13:00.001-04:00

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

Reasoned criticism of the global warming/cooling theories

2007-08-23T01:44:00.000-04:00

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.

Leave comments

2007-08-21T13:30:00.000-04:00

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

Another PalTalk reference

2007-08-21T11:35:00.000-04:00

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

No Blogs For a While

2007-08-12T20:46:00.000-04:00

I Don't Know What a While is.

Bull shit phrases

2007-08-11T22:31:00.000-04:00

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.

Pro choice and the innocence question

2007-08-10T14:37:00.000-04:00

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?

2007-08-10T14:32:00.000-04:00

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.

2007-08-10T14:29:00.000-04:00

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.

Daytime Talk

2007-08-07T05:59:00.000-04:00

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.

2007-08-07T05:56:00.000-04:00

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.

Airwolf rules

2007-08-06T23:38:00.001-04:00

It's true, and you know it.

AIRWOLF Supercopter Music video
Uploaded by klenexius