v is for veracity

Ya' think?

2011-02-20T08:42:00.000-08:00

"Most of the Third World had already suffered nearly terminal bouts of idealism. It was the Communists, after all, who had littered the world with cheap AK-47s in order to 'liberate' the masses. But the only lasting effect was that every wall between Cairo and the Philippines had at least one bullet hole in it. But nothing changed. Nothing changed because these alternate belief systems flew in the face of human nature. Of even common sense. Anyone who has ever tried to share pizza with roommates knows that Communism cannot ever work."

— Daniel Suarez

2010-06-05T07:59:00.001-07:00

"The man who cannot believe his senses, and the man who cannot believe anything else, are both insane, but their insanity is proved not by an error in their argument, but by the manifest mistake of their whole lives."

—G. K. Chesterson

2010-03-29T06:37:00.001-07:00

What Mutations Man Must Face

2010-01-03T07:02:00.000-08:00

Isn't it odd that, just eight years ago, my perception of the United States was one of irrevocable dominance? I no longer feel this way.

Ditto

2009-03-07T05:04:00.000-08:00

T summarizes the "economic recovery plan" as perfectly as anyone could:

How nice. I have a right to know what my money is doing, but not the right to decide where it's going or the right to, I dunno, keep it. [Emphases added]

Yeah, that's pretty much it.

An Interesting Tidbit

2009-03-01T03:53:00.000-08:00

Sales of Atlas Shrugged are on the rise, according to a recent press release. I find this news surprising, despite the fact that I've been recommending the book to practically everyone I know, for precisely the reasons outlined in the release:

“Americans are flocking to buy and read ‘Atlas Shrugged’ because there are uncanny similarities between the plot-line of the book and the events of our day” said Yaron Brook, Executive Director at the Ayn Rand Center for Individual Rights. “Americans are rightfully concerned about the economic crisis and government’s increasing intervention and attempts to control the economy. Ayn Rand understood and identified the deeper causes of the crisis we’re facing, and she offered, in ‘Atlas Shrugged,’ a principled and practical solution consistent with American values."

I suppose my surprise stems from the fact that—although surveys place the novel second only to the Bible in having made the most impact on readers' lives—I don't know many who've actually read the book. Or perhaps I just don't know many who will admit to having read it.

Could be a professional liability, after all.

Oy vey.

2009-01-22T05:58:00.000-08:00

A few gems on Marketplace this morning. Economic Consultant Chris Ferrell gave us this one:

"Isn't the right move to nationalize the U.S. banking system?"

And later, Reporter Tamara Keith followed up thusly:

"The Maryland Insurance Administration is now weighing whether concierge practices should be considered insurance, and subject to regulation. The debate has cracked open an even bigger issue: whether fee for service medicine is contributing to a shortage of primary care physicians.

"Baltimore's commissioner of health, Dr. Joshua Sharfstein, thinks it does. He says when a doctor converts to a concierge practice, a couple thousand patients are displaced."

[emphases added]

So, what's the alternative? "Pardon me, doctor, but you will pay your obligation to society and serve in a general family practice or go to jail. Take your pick."

Time for a reread of Atlas Shrugged.

So.

2009-01-05T13:24:00.000-08:00

Looks like Al Franken is a United States Senator.

This being the case, I have a few suggestions to both celebrate and further the trend:

Secretary of Health and Human Services Keith Olbermann
Secretary of Defense Sean Penn
Secretary of Homeland Security Adam Sandler
Secretary of Education Chris Rock
Secretary of State Ann Coulter
Vice President Rosie O'Donnell
President Rush Limbaugh

Gimme a break.

Of interest: Redevelopment done right

2008-01-12T01:10:00.000-08:00

2007 clichés “thrown under the bus”

2008-01-06T03:38:00.000-08:00

Lake Superior State University put the smack down on overused phrases (via Joanne Jacobs). I was particularly delighted to read this bit:

Other contributors took umbrage at the phrase to “give back” as applied to charitable gestures, usually by celebrities.
“The notion has arisen that as one's life progresses, one accumulates a sort of deficit balance with society which must be neutralized by charitable works or financial outlays,” one said.

Celebrities make me ill (at least one NSFW).

Bhutto

2007-12-27T10:10:00.000-08:00

Question for those who steadfastly claim that terrorists select targets based on Western interference: just how long do you plan to maintain this stance?

Yeah, two sides of the same coin. eyeroll

2007-11-30T04:04:00.000-08:00

For all those who still don't understand the scope of what the West is dealing with here, more news from the lands of Allah. Thousands of Muslims in Sudan think it would be a great idea to execute some Brit for allowing her elementary school students to name the class teddy bear "Mohammed." The throng showed up with clubs and knives, apparently prepared to use them.

Here's the thing: they are a bunch of children, and it's just a fucking toy. Besides, aren't about 93% of Muslims named Mohammed? Even the girls I've known have it within the laundry list that comprises their complete names. Shall we execute their parents for this unspeakable act?

As a point of comparison, I've decided the bear shown here shall be henceforth referred to as Jesus. I will let you know when the mob shows up with torches and pitchforks.

UPDATE: The genius pundits on The View say it serves her right. Still waiting for someone to comment that this sort of extreme religious response might be a concern of its own merit.

Huh.

2007-11-24T05:17:00.000-08:00

Well, the word “noose” is now a racial slur. Who knew?

“Economics Proves It, You Freak!”

2007-11-19T03:34:00.000-08:00

About halfway through Freakonomics, and here's the summary thus far:

We are all liars (excepting the authors, apparently).
We are all cheaters (a few of the examples provided: sumo wrestlers; teachers; real estate agents; and pretty much everyone who owns, operates, or works in for-profit business).
We are all bigots (as demonstrated by intensive game show analysis).
In fact, most every person is simply horrible. Except for crack dealers. Those guys are just misunderstood by the society that handed them a raw deal from birth.

For the uninitiated, this New York Times bestseller (more than three million copies sold) details a lone, prodigious economist's meticulous examinations of some of society's “freaky” questions—debunking conventional wisdom using hard data gathered through deep and unconventional mining, or so the claim goes.

Sadly, the book completely ignores its own correlation/causation warning and goes straight for the x-proves-y jugular—not infrequently, but with numerous instances per chapter, if not per page. Here's a simple (and comparatively less offensive) example from today's reading, included in an analysis of online dating:

28% of the women on the site said they were blonde, a number far beyond the national average, which indicates a lot of dying, or lying, or both.

The assumptions behind such a statement are noteworthy. Must this conclusion follow from the data? No. The authors assume that those who use online dating sites mirror the population at large. What data do they offer to prove this is the case? None. So, how about some alternative hypotheses:

Older adults are greatly underrepresented on the Internet, compared to other age groups. Even considering those who do get online, how many 70-year-old women are posting profiles on match.com? Eliminating most of the grey-haired, white haired, salt-and-pepper haired, and bald women might alter the percentages, no?
Minority ethnicities are likewise underrepresented online. Many minorities who populate the United States (e.g., blacks, Hispanics, Middle Easterners, Asians) are genetically predisposed to having dark hair. How might this fact alter the odds?
For the sake of argument, let's assume blondness to be a characteristic that increases a woman's comparative physical attractiveness. Might it be reasonable that many such attractive women have become distressed by the type of man who hits on them in, say, a club? It's certainly quite possible that such men, who are likely searching for yet another sexual partner and nothing more, would be keenly interested in physical attractiveness. We could reasonably infer that most of the interactions such women have with men are primarily sexual in nature and, depending on her ultimate aims, much less desirable. How about those attractive women who claim they never get dates, because men are too intimidated to ask them out? What are the prospects of a successful long-term relationship for these women? A dating site sounds like a reasonable alternative to me.
Along those same lines, research has found that attractiveness positively correlates with income (i.e., attractive people tend to make more money). Aren't those with money more likely to (a) own a computer, (b) have the disposable income needed to purchase monthly Internet access and subscriptions to such dating sites, and/or (c) be busy enough with work as to make dating a more complicated enterprise—one demographic explicitly targeted by such web sites?
And my favorite, from a philosophical standpoint: what, precisely, defines blondness? One might say that blondness is defined by the having of blonde hair. By this criteria, does it matter if such hair color is natural or achieved by alternate methods (i.e., dying)? Might it not be that 28% of women actually are blonde, if we throw all those who dye their hair into a group with the natural blondes? After all, is the online dating web site's prompt "hair color" or "natural hair color?"

And these are just top-of-the-head scenarios offered by a regular guy with very little research background or statistical training. They all seem like reasonable questions to me—questions that should be explored before making such broad assertions. Does our virtuosic economist take every variable into consideration before drawing his conclusions? Because the book provides no clear reason to believe so, I must assume an answer in the negative.

This is one of the simplest and, to my mind, least controversial claims made in the book thus far. The other conclusions drawn are more offensive, particularly when one considers the disturbing lack of evidence provided as support. I'll let you know how things turn out. I'm not expecting a sudden mea culpa.

Shared sacrifice and moral equality

2007-11-14T03:00:00.000-08:00

I find it incredible that the collectivists don't even bother with an attempt to disguise their aspirations for a supreme nanny-state anymore.

A story on NPR this morning (I know, I know) discussed the drought, specifically in North Carolina. It seems as though these pesky private property owners aren't climbing aboard the Shared Sacrifice Express. When local governments restrict water usage, these bastards just dig a well on their own land. Big Brother (or should I say, Big Mama?) is investigating the legalities that might be involved in placing restrictions on private digging—including water usage restrictions on personal wells and prohibitions on any further drilling.

What makes this especially egregious? The powers that be don't even care whether or not private wells are impacting neighbors or the local water supply as a whole. No, this is about being a Good Little Child and taking one for the team in the name of "fairness." John Morris, head of the NC Division of Water Resources, sounds shameless when providing a justification in the name of "moral equality":

It's sort of like your Mother telling you to eat your green peas because children in other parts of the world don't have enough to eat.

Not much more anyone should need to say about that, eh?

The Ramifications of the Strike

2007-11-03T07:55:00.000-07:00

I've been thinking on unions and strikes lately. This idiotic Hollywood writers' strike looming on the horizon sealed the deal on this post. Some conclusions:

Unions imply weakness. Now, before you begin your speech on brotherhood, strength in numbers, securing rights for the oppressed, and so forth, stop and think for a moment. Who forms unions? (Hint: Usually unskilled workers who could be replaced by someone off the street in about two seconds with very little loss in productivity.) Why do they do so? (Hint: Because, as unskilled workers, they'd rather not rely on their merits as a producer alone when searching for a new job.)

Joining a union gives the impression—to someone like myself, at least—that the members consider themselves exploitable, easy prey, aware of their own weaknesses as potential employees in a demanding job market. (They seem blissfully unaware that one creates her own potential.) As such, each member would rather shut down her entire profession than actually work to improve her skills and seek better opportunities.

Strikes are ineffective. I don't know what these Hollywood writers are thinking. Have you seen television lately? If not, please let me assure you, it is of very poor quality. These scripts could have been (and, in fact, may have been) written by high school dropouts. Within a free market, striking only works when that which is being denied is of high quality and, therefore, a necessity. If your product is shit, why would The Brass be concerned in the slightest?

If I were a Hollywood exec, I'd tell all these writers to rot and start scouting for new employees at the Santa Monica Pier—there's undoubtedly just as much "talent" floating around similar spots across the entire Los Angeles area. (Of course, Hollywood studios would undoubted cease production, rather than replace striking workers. Another tendency of The Brass I've never understood. Ronald Reagan knew how to deal with this kind of childishness.)

Consider the replacement worker who is beaten as he attempts to work and feed his family. The manager whose car is flipped in the parking lot. The company building burned to the ground by Hoffa and his ilk. Why do so many strikes resort to violence, especially when the remainder of society attempts business-as-usual? The simple truth is, once one realizes he has nothing of value to offer, the only way to gain what he wants is through intimidation and force. This further demeans the blue collar worker in the eyes of society: not only does he have no skills, but he's a violent brute. Probably drunk, too.

Professionals know best. Professionals don't form unions. When they are upset about something, they don't close down the entire profession in an attempt to get what they desire. This is because those in the classical professions—lawyers, doctors, architects, etc.—understand they offer a valuable commodity. Instead of throwing a collective hissy-fit, they simply seek out others who are willing to pay for their services.

Workers have other recourses to striking, despite what all good progressives will tell you. For example, they might quit their (apparently terrible, if they're going to all the trouble of striking) job, improve their skills, and seek employment elsewhere. Better yet, one or more could establish a competing business in what might be a more risky, but potentially much more lucrative, option.

A great writer wouldn't need a union. She'd create her text, then sell it to the highest bidder. They'd all be begging her for it, and wouldn't the tables have turned? Instead of hovering underfoot, hoping for scraps in exchange for the no-talent schlock she'd crank out, she would dictate terms and name her own price. Which option seems best to you?

The Dishonest Debate

2007-10-19T07:57:00.000-07:00

[Post by M. — Correct authorship lost in transfer to new hosting platform.]

Consider this quote by the Nobel laureate Albert Gore.

It is the most dangerous challenge we've ever faced but it is also the greatest opportunity that we have ever had to make changes that we should be making for other reasons anyway.

Wow. Tell me, is there any doubt remaining that global warming is just the latest attempt to backdoor global socialism?

If we could have an honest debate in this country about global warming, fine. Great in fact. If global warming is happening (I'm coming around to accepting the possibility), and it is man-made (not even close to accepting that premise), rational leaders will have a series of meetings and will come to the conclusion that technology is the best cure. Any advancement in technology, advances mankind and eases human suffering.

Unfortunately, we aren't even close to having an honest debate. We have the hypocrites--ranging from Laurie David to Al Gore who live lavishly flying across the world in private jets, while they insist on eliminating our safest automobiles--trying to suffocate any voices who raise questions. The Washington state chief meteorologist, for example, was fired by their illegitimate governor--that gubernatorial race was most blatant example of election theft in my lifetime--because the meteorologist felt global warmists were overreacting. Any climatologist who question the findings of rigged "computer models"--a bogus science tool if ever there were one--are shunned and isolated.

It seems every time I see a pundit declare that there is no longer any doubt that man is causing global warming, it is followed the next day by scientists pointing out there may be evidence that says otherwise. To say that it the debate is over is wishful thinking. It has been reported that the Sun is getting hotter, which is contributing to the warming of Earth. Why is that being widely ignored? Mars is getting warmer, despite the lack of a human presence. Why is that being widely ignored? NASA screwed up and it turns out that the warmest year on record wasn't 1998. Why is that being widely ignored?

It is getting to the point of absurdity. Actually, it's well past that point. Because there may be a lot at stake.

Global warming could very well be a serious threat to humanity. What the hell do I know? Well, I know the behavior of its proponents tell me differently. It tells me they are on an outlandish power grab, with echoes of the Cultural Revolution. And the cures are ludicrous. Take the worst-case scenario of global warming, and their cures, at best, make it a wash. If global warming will cause widespread misery and the cure will cause widespread misery, what's the freaking point?

realizations iii

2007-09-29T02:58:00.000-07:00

Five realizations upon seeing "Across the Universe"—

5. Yep, still don't much care for the Beatles.

4. In 2007, repetitious full frontal nudity, strong sexuality, and rampant drug use garners a PG-13 rating. Not that I am against full frontal nudity or strong sexuality. Quite to the contrary. Still, if I know American parents—and if anyone does, I do—most don't want their 13-year-olds gaping at this stuff. In fact, pretty much everything parents of 13-year-olds fear when it comes to their children fall into two broad categories: sex and drugs.

3. Only present-day Hollywood (especially those who went to Oberlin during Vietnam) could present such transparent rhetoric and expect us to swallow it as an enchanting, "against all odds" love story.

2. Bono looks terrible. I didn't realize how ancient he had become until seeing this film. And Eddie Izzard isn't holding up well, either.

1. Modern "progressives" are apparently just as insane and/or drug-addled as they were back when they called themselves "hippies" forty years and ninety pounds ago.

A response to the filmmakers—

I know how proud of yourselves you are for creating a masterpiece. Likely, your shoulders have become dislocated and your backs bruised and raw. But this film is not an artistic triumph filled with subtle symbolism and striking visuals. Rather, it's utterly obvious. It's simply literal. It's much too easy. Art is none of these.

I know how proud of yourselves you are for making a statement. But your film is not cutting-edge commentary on the horrors of war, a lone voice crying against the tyranny of American imperialism. Plainly, it's all been done before. Many times. (And frankly, I am still patiently waiting to meet the person who's ever thought of war as anything but gruesome and horrible. But I digress.)

I know how proud of yourselves you are for crafting an allegory. But, shocking as this may sound to you and your Boomer ilk, we don't live in the 1960s anymore. The world stopped playing by '60s rules long ago. Case in point: no one crashed planes into buildings filled with innocent civilians forty years and ninety pounds ago.

Other than all that, nice work. That Evan Rachel Wood sure is easy on the eyes.

Question of the Year

2007-09-23T02:15:00.000-07:00

How must one respond when he discovers that another whom he held in respect—whom he once regarded as intelligent, educated, even wise—turns to the madness of the fiery polemic, the conspiracy theory, and—much worse—the absurdity of the collectivist mind?

The monks of old concerned themselves with spirituality, humanity, and the great questions of existence and purpose, not trendy political pet causes. Only in these days could so noble a pursuit be twisted into such a grotesque perversion.

ohgoodlordhavemercy

2007-07-07T02:12:00.000-07:00

I read this in the sidebar of someone's blog this morning:

Every single human being, when the entire situation is taken into account, has always, at every moment of the past, done the very best that he or she could do, and so deserves neither blame nor reproach from anyone, including self. This, in particular, is true of you.

Random thought of the day: *SIGH*

Sportscenter and POTUS

2007-07-05T14:45:00.000-07:00

Instapunk had sportscasters on my mind when synchronicity kicked me in the throat yet again. Somehow, the American leftists have it in their heads that this former ESPN Sportscenter anchor is some sort of political genius:

I once again found myself questioning why people listen to this sort of insane rhetoric (from either side), let alone support it after the fact with rants of their very own (and by this, I mean verbatim repetitions ad nauseam). But that's simple. They agree with the insanity. So then, why on earth do they listen to this particular “pundit”—a sportscaster, for God's sake—when it comes to political “news?” And this answer is just as simple, if not a tad depressing: he wears a suit and has his own show on MSNBC, which confers intellect and expertise, regardless as to whether it has been earned or not. (If you haven't seen what all the virtual orgasms are over, take a peek. Fair warning: it's nothing you haven't heard before and just long enough to cause a migraine.)

Personally, I'd just as soon watch Harry Caray discuss astrophysics. He's just as qualified, no? And much more entertaining.

Apologies...

2007-07-03T13:22:00.000-07:00

...for the brevity of these posts, but I simply must take a moment: our nation has far too many fucking idiots.

//end

Hi?

2007-07-03T06:38:00.000-07:00

Here I sit, still waiting for the rest of the world—and particularly Europe—to realize that the United States isn't the only place despised by extremists.

The Immigration Issue

2007-06-24T02:31:00.000-07:00

I really don't see all the confusion over the immigration issue. It all seems very straightforward to me. Read enough things like these...

http://www.mexica-movement.org/
http://www.calstatela.edu/orgs/mecha/planphilmecha.htm

...and the true motivations become fairly obvious, don't you think? It's all about La Reconquista, baby, which—when you get right down to brass tacks—is basically a pissing contest of monumental proportions.

Who will win? The way things have been around the good ol' U. S. of A. lately, my money's on La Raza.

Mic Czech

2007-06-17T05:53:00.000-07:00

Holy wow, they got themselves one smart cookie of a president in that there Czech Republic. A few of his summary suggestions follow. These three demonstrate he understands liberty better than our elected representatives here in the U.S.:

Any suppression of freedom and democracy should be avoided
Instead of organising people from above, let us allow everyone to live as he wants
Let us be humble but confident in the spontaneous evolution of human society. Let us trust its rationality and not try to slow it down or divert it in any direction

You go, Vaclav. I also very much appreciate this statement:

Small climate changes do not demand far-reaching restrictive measures

I might humbly suggest we delete the word "climate" and consider the result as a guideline for all aspects of human existence. The adjectives "far-reaching" and "restrictive" should set off red flags in anyone who values human experiments in freedom. Neither leftists nor our current neocon administration understand the principle Klaus summarized in this one simple sentence. I suppose that's not a fair statement; they probably understand it and just don't give a shit.

This is the statement that had me on my feet with a "Hallelujah," however:

Let us resist the politicisation of science and oppose the term “scientific consensus”, which is always achieved only by a loud minority, never by a silent majority

Loud minority? Really? Nawwwww, couldn't happen. Question, my friends. Always. And remember the words of Orson Scott Card, which have been quoted here before:

[R]eporters covering science in America today are so wretchedly miseducated that they don't even know what questions to ask when interviewing biased sources. And they are perfectly willing to make ridiculous statements—which would include any sentence beginning with "scientists believe." This is the postreligious equivalent of a fundamentalist preacher starting a sentence with "The Bible says." It invokes authority without context, without understanding, and without admitting the possibility of error.

Good for him

2007-06-17T05:29:00.000-07:00

This Evening

2007-06-10T16:17:00.000-07:00

I must stop reading other blogs.

This evening, I addressed deficiencies in a blogger's arguments and asked for clarifications.

I asked for hard data to support his claims, and he told me to “look around” and see what's happening “everyday.” [sic]

I accused him of political rhetoric, and he referred me to Wikipedia as a legitimate research-based publication.

I mentioned his lack of professional ethics, and he maintained that ethical standards for professionals are an “unnecessary method of control” (please don't mention this to my lawyer or doctor).

I suggested he review best practices in our field, and he was apparently ignorant that such research even exists.

I begged him to stop teaching before he does even more damage.

Synchronicity abounds

2007-05-28T08:57:00.000-07:00

Soon after my previous post, I read the following:

He tried to explain and to convince. He knew, while he spoke, that it was useless, because his words sounded as if they were hitting a vacuum. There was no such person as Mrs. Wayne Wilmot; there was only a shell containing the opinions of her friends, the picture post cards she had seen, the novels of country squires she had read; it was this that he had to address, this immateriality which could not hear him or answer, deaf and impersonal like a wad of cotton.

—Ayn Rand, The Fountainhead

Up With Which I Am Fed

2007-05-27T23:32:00.000-07:00

I am no newbie to political debate. Not by a long shot. I also have much sustained exposure to the insanities that are:

(a) Internet “debate”—Even more uncivilized than the disagreements you had with that kid in college you really hated (you know the one I mean), with so much fallacious argument slung hither and yon, the relative anonymity offered by the format allows any dispute to rapidly degenerate into the most vile name-calling imaginable. I've been playing in the online discussion forum sandbox for more than a dozen years now, so by this point, not much surprises me.

(b) The Leftist Approach™—I shouldn't need to elaborate on this, but for the peanut gallery: bias, hypocrisy, and attempted marginalization; intolerant, illogical, and intentionally contrary. (Instapunk nails it; the second paragraph is particularly relevant to this post.)

Still, I have reached a state of simple disbelief and complex exasperation, and wonder if it's even possible to make a dent into the cement wall that seems to so completely encapsulate our society, perhaps our world. Can people learn reason? Can they learn to—if only for a moment—set aside their prejudices, ideologies, and agendas? Can they listen, talk plainly, and discuss without resorting to the inflammatory rebuke? Or am I asking too much? Perhaps I am asking too much.

As I've mentioned on innumerable occasions, when it comes to attempted dialogue on any hot-button issue, reason is too often out the window. Most recently, I've been discussing a case involving the apparent gang-rape of a 17-year-old girl by a group of college athletes (I know; I was shocked, too). I am quite understanding that this is a difficult issue. Likewise, I understand that many (if not myself) would consider it a “delicate” topic of discussion, to be handled with greatest care (if handled at all). I also realize that those who would engage in a lengthy debate on such an issue probably have something invested emotionally: perhaps they were accused of rape in the past or were the victim of a sexual assault. These are both horrifying experiences, to be certain, and perhaps it's ridiculous of me to expect people to check their emotional baggage at the door and think rationally. But I still expect it.

So allow me to say, with conviction, that engaging in any sexual act without the explicit consent of all parties involved is immoral. Those who commit such crimes should be prosecuted and punished to the full extent the law allows. To any logical person, this goes without saying.

A libertarian at heart, I believe that people may do what they will with their own bodies. If they'd like to pack their bloodstreams with alcohol or other intoxicants, they are free to do so, so long as they don't violate the rights of others while in the resultant altered state. The reason I bring this up is simple: research demonstrates that alcohol correlates with sexual assault.

Here's a bit of research on the topic—not an emotional response, mind you, but actual statistics:

Alcohol-related sexual assault is a common occurrence on college campuses. Although estimates of the incidence and prevalence vary dramatically because different sources use different definitions and many victims are unwilling to report sexual assaults to the police or other authorities, at least 50 percent of college student sexual assaults are associated with alcohol use (Abbey, 1991, 2002; Abbey et al., 1996, 1998; Copenhaver and Grauerholz, 1991; Harrington and Leitenberg, 1994; Koss, 1992; Koss et al., 1987; Miller and Marshall, 1987; Muehlenhard and Linton, 1987; Presley et al., 1997; Tyler et al., 1998). Further, when alcohol is involved, acts meeting the legal definition of rape appear more likely to occur (Ullman et al., 1999).

Typically, if either the victim or the perpetrator is drinking alcohol, then both are (Abbey et al., 1998). In one study, both the victim and the perpetrator had been drinking in 97 percent of sexual assaults involving alcohol (Harrington and Leitenberg, 1994). In another study the rate was 81 percent (Abbey et al., 1998).

Sexual assaults most frequently occur among individuals who know each other, in the context of a date or party at the woman’s or man’s home (e.g., residence hall, apartment, fraternity, sorority, and parents’ homes). In a sample of 416 college women who had experienced sexual assault, those involving alcohol were more likely to be perpetrated by a nonromantic friend or acquaintance (Norris et al., 1998).

This isn't a posting on drinking or sexual assault, per se. I provide this information in support of the position I held in the debate already referenced: Knowing this information—that sexual assault, particularly among younger people, correlates with alcohol consumption and that, more often than not, the victim is raped by a friend or acquaintance—why would any reasonable person, male or female, place themselves in such a circumstance? Just as drinking and driving imposes inherent risks, so does drinking in the presence of young males—even those one might consider “friends.” Statistics bear out both of these as very real dangers.

Responses from the other posters were the typical rants. Here are a few examples (rephrased for brevity, language, and comprehensibility):

(a) “You're saying that being drunk is the same as consenting to sex, even if the girl is incapacitated. Is it okay to have sex with a woman in a coma?”

(b) “Don't go to parties and get drunk? Right, and don't wear that skirt, because then you'll be asking for it.”

(c) “If I drink and drive, I am committing a crime. If I drink and am raped, I am the victim of a crime. The two are completely unrelated.”

(d) “Puritan! Because you believe drinking and partying are sinful, you believe rape victims are 'getting what they deserve.' Why not emblazon a scarlet letter across their breasts?”

Quite clearly, I neither stated nor implied these (with the exception of the comment referenced in (c), as the two situations very clearly are related, inasmuch that voluntary participation in a risky scenario often leads to horrific results). No, my question was based on a review of facts and the application of logic. For example, statistics also demonstrate that walking in front of a moving train greatly decreases your chances of continued living. Would my suggestion that people not step onto the tracks at such a moment garner a similar response? The answer is resoundingly no. This, therefore, begs the questions: Why the disparity in reaction? Why the ability to see reason in one instance, and the immediate jump to the irrational in the other?

Perhaps the respondents confuse my belief in the old truism “if you'd rather not be burned, stop playing with fire” as a callous indictment of the victim. (Honestly, I can see how they make the inference, but only when one allows emotions to skew the debate or ignores everything else I've stated.) I certainly do not intend it as such. Some people enjoy playing with fire, I suppose, even when they know the house might easily burn to the ground. Others may derive some other satisfaction from the scenario, wholly or partially unrelated to the matches themselves. We also must allow for the minute possibility that some who are indeed mentally ill actually hope that the place goes up in smoke. Certainly, from a human perspective, I feel compassion for those made homeless once the flames are extinguished, but don't ask me to feign shock. And please don't ask me to set aside the skepticism I rightly invoke when others pretend indignant astonishment that such a risky enterprise ended so tragically.

The severity of responses indicates a defense mechanism of some sort could be in play. These responders obviously assume an attack, a provocation—even when no such threat is immediate. Instapunk might suggest projection, and perhaps rightly so (e.g., leftists being who they are—legislating as many of their personal beliefs as possible—are seemingly incapable of distinguishing friendly advice from a proposed legal compulsion). Maybe on some level these people feel the urge to dominate and destroy so strongly, they assume that all others must also feel it. Or perhaps they are so tied to their political agendas, the “obviously true” dogmatic beliefs associated with their party platforms have become so ingrained as to have become integral components of their personalities. Alternatively, they might simply be insane and suffering from basic paranoia. There is to my manner of thinking, however, a simpler explanation.

If the link is obvious, then why do others protest the logical (and, honestly, very simple) solution of I've offered as friendly advice: avoiding exposure? We've known for thousands of years that alcohol and sexual assaults correlate (see Genesis 19:32-35 or Genesis 9:21-22 for some of the earliest documented examples) much the same as we've known (and ignored, until sizable profits could be procured through litigation) for decades that smoking correlates with cancer. Awareness of these correlations have not—and will never—alter the underlying risks. Voluntarily smoking and impairing oneself with intoxicants are both implicitly dangerous, as is stepping before the speeding train. No legislation, educational initiative, or voo-doo magic can alter this reality.

So, the heart of the matter: why deny the obvious solution? The simple explanation to which I referred above is desire. Libertarians know all about desire and advocate for responsible, consenting adults making their own choices on such matters; leftists have it all backwards, however. They are big believers in the naked pursuit of their desires, but flatly deny the attachment of any associated negative outcomes: they want the pleasures of sex without pregnancy or stigma, the convenience of transportation without environmental impact, the trappings of our modern consumerism without the “greed” of capitalism, safety and security without the shows of strength necessary to ensure such, and all the fun of getting tanked without any of the associated violence. In essence, the “consenting adults” component is all well and good, but the “responsibility” part can go straight to hell.

And here we are right back where we've always been: a segment of the adult population making—like so many toddlers and 13-year-olds—adolescent demands for what is an obvious impossibility: Consequences be damned... I want to have my cake and eat it, too. How in the world does one reason with that?

Wham, Bam, Thank You, Sir.

2007-05-20T01:41:00.000-07:00

Ah, Instapunk:

Of course, Simon and Garfunkel never bothered to indict the aftermath of the Vietnam War in which hundreds of thousands of Vietnamese were killed and imprisoned and millions of Cambodians were slaughtered as the dominoes fell. The obvious truth of her statement “the generation of the 1960s that now holds power in Washington seems to have learned next to nothing from the disaster of Vietnam” is singularly bitter on the tongue because she's so evidently one of the ones who didn't learn the lesson that abandoning the field to totalitarian fanatics results in mass murder on a scale that makes open warfare look like peacekeeping.

And if that hasn't convinced you...

2007-05-19T02:51:00.000-07:00

...take a gander at this rant, recently submitted to Craigslist in response to posters deriding those of us who make our home in “flyover country”:
_____

As I read this discussion, I believe myself to be at a loss with respect to the original author's (and a few of the follow-ups, as well) intent. What, precisely, defines a life of quality? True, much has been noted already on the inherent subjectivity of such a question. Still, our world is not without trends, and those of us who—intentionally or not—adopt a view that encapsulates some depth and breadth can undoubtedly notice and comment on these. We can, in fact, even unearth truisms.

When one discusses the availability of “culture,” for example, what does one hope to gain? Museums and performance venues are all well and good, but I know of very few people who visit these more than perhaps a dozen times per year, regardless of where they live and the availability of such places. What is to be gained by touting your proximity to MOMA, for instance? Don't mistake my intent here; fine art is a passion of mine. But, aside from the occasional special touring exhibition, museums of any type have a set collection on display. I was at the Getty Center recently. How many times per week would I care to see the exact same Monet? How many times per year should I listen to the same orchestra play the same Beethoven? And as for popular music... well, that cookie-cutter industry obviously churns out the same album with different faces on the cover about a million times each year.

The same might be asked with respect to “night life.” A wide variety of establishments, filled to the rafters with drunken fools who barely have a chance at stringing a cogent sentence together on the rare occasion of their sobriety, let alone on any given day after Happy Hour™ has begun. This is something to be sought out? Something to be prized? What difference might it make if there are ten such places or three hundred? Vomit on the floor and urine in the sink smell the same in any (read: every) club, regardless of how “hip” it might be. The only difference is whether the pair of shoes you ruined cost $20 or $600.

Which leads directly to the number of people who populate a given locale. The simple fact of the matter is, 99% of the people one meets are only valuable as oddities: things to be examined, considered, and then bewildered over with mental questions such as, “how has someone so idiotic managed to avoid being run down by a vegetable truck for this long?” Whether he is capable of only monosyllabic grunts as he grinds his Gap-clad abs across the dance floor or she is speaking unceasingly on the most abstract philosophical topic in an effort to prove her intellectual prowess, nearly all people simply aren't worth getting to know. Sure, the 1% worth knowing will be a larger number in a city like LA or NYC, but you have a proportionate increase in the pool of morons to wade through in a vain attempt to find someone who doesn't give you a migraine every time s/he speaks.

And the weather? Oh, please. We all traverse the exact same mall to the exact same TGI Friday's which all have the exact same air conditioning and heating units. Sure, weather influences us—for the three minutes each day we spend walking from the car to the door of wherever we happen to be headed to fill up our otherwise empty lives.

And isn't that the point, really? I mentioned truisms earlier, and this is certainly the biggest of them all: so many people are naught but a hollow shell, they feel the need to spend every waking moment visiting places, meeting people, shopping, eating, drinking, vomiting, and so on ad nauseam because they are terrified to be alone, someplace quiet. And with good reason, too. In those times, they realize they are absolutely nothing, and that their lives are utter and complete wastes of the potential born into each one of us. No wonder those iPods sell so well.

Pretentious Bastard

2007-05-19T02:39:00.000-07:00

Just review this conversation I am having via comments on a web site for composers. I've long suspected I may be an asshole; this might confirm these suspicions.

The Family-Friendly Collectivism of China

2007-04-23T01:23:00.000-07:00

For all our leftist friends out there, here is a story from one of the shining stars of collectivist societies. Just to repeat the claim for all the socialist-leaning folks of America: tales such as these are the result of a government striving for the "common good."

(As to why NPR would air such a story, I have no idea. For all one could tell, they would be more than happy to exist within a one-party socialist/communist state.)

Peaceful Protest?

2007-03-10T09:24:00.000-08:00

The National Socialists were marching on my town this afternoon. My protest idea involved the manufacture of this sandwich board, then hopping the barriers and standing in the road in front of them. Unfortunately, the idea came too late for implementation. How sad.

On Old Norse courage, Ragnarök, and Tolkien

2007-02-18T01:33:00.000-08:00

[V]ictory or defeat have nothing to do with right and wrong, and [...] even if the universe is controlled beyond redemption by hostile and evil forces, that is not enough to make a hero change sides. In a sense this Northern mythology asks more of people than Christianity does, for it offers them no heaven, no salvation, no reward for virtue except the sombre satisfaction of having done right.

—Tom Shippey

minority mysticism

2007-01-31T03:28:00.000-08:00

From a story on NPR's Morning Edition:

"[NYC airport security workers treat Muslims with] a kind of formal politeness, but that you knew underneath was contemptuous of who you are and where you came from." [emphasis added]

— Adam Habib, Apparent Mindreader

Objectivism and postmodernism

2007-01-23T07:02:00.000-08:00

Upon reading my previous post on Ayn Rand and Objectivism, a friend asked for clarification on one of my comments. Unfamiliar with the tenets of postmodernism, he asked why these might be incompatible, and why I seem such a harsh critic of postmodern theory.

For more on postmodern thought, see this article. To draw an example on why so many (including myself) consider postmodern criticism an absurdity, I call on my former field of study: music. The postmodern “new musicology” was responsible for the infamous Susan McClary debacle, wherein she conflates musical passages from Beethoven's Ninth Symphony with rape.

A being A, Objectivists would have a problem with such an interpretation. Music is music, rape is rape, and never the twain shall meet.

A response to Ayn Rand's Anthem and quotes on Objectivism

2007-01-14T23:56:00.000-08:00

I've started reading the works of Ayn Rand, beginning with her very short novel Anthem—which (I've been told) stands as a prelude to the remainder of her oevre—a summary of her idealized vision of man. This project is of great interest to me, thanks to my own libertarian leanings, though as with all my other projects, I expect to become distracted and take quite some time to work my way through her writings.

Anthem

My response to the book is mixed. As an exaltation of the individual, it provides an adequate response to the misguided collectivism that permeates the Marxist-influenced Statism we still find all around us in contemporary Western culture. On the other hand, it's also fairly predictable, but this may be a function of its age (the book was first published nearly 70 years ago), the prevalence of similar/derived dystopian works that have since appeared, and my own familiarity with libertarian principles. It is written well enough, though not spectacularly when compared with what has come to be known as the English literary canon; I assume Rand's writings are held in such high regard by some circles based on the philosophical/political content, more than the quality of her prose.

This said, it's a quick read (it takes a chapter to adjust to “we” in place of most other pronouns, but you'll catch on) and Equality 7-2521/Prometheus serves as a fine representation of man's ideal state of existence; chapter eleven is especially important in understanding Rand's take on humanity.

Objectivism

I come to this Ayn Rand project with an understanding of libertarian principles, but with no education to speak of on Objectivism. I intend to formulate my initial response here, though I don't expect any of this to be of particular interest to those already schooled in Rand's philosophy. This is mostly an exploration of the tenets presented in the book; thinking out loud, as it were. As always, readers are welcome to comment on the posting and tell me where I have it all wrong. The essential underpinnings of Rand's philosophy are provided as direct quotes below, with my own response following each.

“Reality, the external world, exists independent of man's consciousness, independent of any observer's knowledge, beliefs, feelings, desires or fears.”

This statement is so obviously true as to need no further justification. Rand is establishing a foundation for her philosophy based on a concrete definition of reality. The Empire State Building exists as it is, regardless of whether I choose to believe so or not. Likewise, I exist as a man; no one's perceptions of me alter my state of being.

“Reason is man's only means of acquiring knowledge.”

My limited exposure to Objectivism clouds the degree to which I may agree with this statement. Obviously, I agree in principle. The degree to which I concur, however, is greatly dependent on how Rand would define Reason. If she means man's capacity for logic and philosophical thought, then I will again agree wholeheartedly. If, however, the implication is that the only path to knowledge is through empirical study using the scientific method, I have grave reservations.

“[The freedom to think or not is] the choice that controls all the choices you make and determines your life and character.”

Every human forges his or her own path. Success or failure, virtue or villainy, living or merely alive: all spring of the cumulative decisions we make throughout our conscious existence. There is no fate, nor destiny excepting the idealized potential each person holds within him or herself. God does not and will not intervene into the daily workings of the universe.

“Man—every man—is an end in himself, not a means to the end of others; he must live for his own sake, neither sacrificing himself to others nor sacrificing others to himself; he must work for his rational self-interest, with the achievement of his own happiness as the highest moral purpose of his life.”

Here again, I need to become more educated before I can commit to either side of the argument. I believe rational self-interest to be requisite to happiness. However, I also believe altruism can be, for some people, just as requisite. How would Rand respond to the drive to help others to enjoy life, as well? Would she assert that such a drive is born of some inner failing, some psychological flaw? Or would she find it acceptable, if the person derives true pleasure from helping others?

More troublesome, in my opinion, is the relativistic door which might be more easily opened any time the “for one's own sake” phrase is tacked on to an action statement. So long as Rand maintains (and I assume she does) high expectation for personal responsibility and respect for the rights of others, the effects of relativism are minimized; however, it can certainly open a philosophical floodgate of preposterous “it may not be true for you, but it is true for me” rationalizations.

“The only social system that bars physical force from human relationships is laissez-faire capitalism. Capitalism is a system based on the recognition of individual rights, including property rights, in which the only function of government is to protect individual rights.”

I agree with these statements. During the many political debates in which I have participated since college, I have encountered incorrect definitions of laissez-faire capitalism (which, to avoid redundancy should really just be called capitalism) to be prevalent. Many seem to assume this means businesses go entirely unchecked and can operate in whatever way they wish. This is simply not the case. As with individuals, businesses are accountable for noninterference with the rights enjoyed by others; this includes competing businesses. As with protection of individual rights, the government is charged with protecting the rights of businesses. What a government in a capitalist economy may not do, however, is regulate industry unnecessarily or impose taxes or tariffs that would curtail free trade. Our government as it stands pays lip service to the concept that we have a capitalist economy, but in actuality, we have no such system. Our government does far too much regulating and far too little protecting.

Ayn Rand and Political Ideologies

As should be apparent to most anyone who follows political dealings in even the most superficial manner, Rand does/would engender stereotypical responses from those who adopt various political ideologies. Again, I have yet to do any research on these responses, so excuse me while I play Carnac the Magnificent for a moment and make my best reasoned guesses (I believe Ayn Rand would approve of this approach):

Libertarians will worship her, as Objectivism provides a philosophical underpinning for their own political platform, plank by plank.

Conservatives would agree with aspects of her philosophy, particularly those relating to government and economics, but many would oppose her positions on metaphysics and ethics on religious grounds. Because of the strict beliefs that reality can be known through direct observation and all knowledge springs from man's reason, Objectivists reject any belief in the supernatural, mystical, and knowledge obtained through faith or other means.

A large segment of the conservative movement is steadfastly and unquestionably committed to religious dogma—specifically within our Western culture, the Judeo-Christian ideology, but such conservatism is rampant in other parts of the world, as well (e.g., Islam). As a result, many believe that realities exist outside the capacities of man's direct observation (e.g., God, an afterlife scenario, miracles). If one hopes to hold such beliefs without tangible evidence, faith must be put to use. Additionally, Rand's views on human nature would be a point of contention, as the Objectivist maintains that an individual's reason and choices are responsible for his or her life circumstances; this is contradictory to the belief that, for example, prayer can influence a course of events by petitioning God to action. Often, any questioning of the existence of supernatural beings, locales, or miraculous interventions is met with charges of heresy or expressions of pity; thus, those of deep religious belief will undoubtedly find Rand's views on these matters objectionable or downright sacrilegious.

Honestly, while it is often seen as a more right-leaning stance, many aspects of libertarian ideology are objectionable to religious conservatives, particularly with respect to the morality of individual free will. Objectivism advocates for “[man's] own happiness as the highest moral purpose of his life,” so long as his actions do not infringe upon the rights of others. This view lies in direct contrast to the Judeo-Christian ethic of serving others first and foremost; despite the Golden Rule as a stated expectation for behavior, many organized religious sects more explicitly advocate for a “do unto others better than you do unto yourself” mentality. Additionally, the Objectivist “man's own happiness as moral compass” ethic serves as a justification of activities that nearly all religious conservatives would consider “sinful” and “hedonistic”—from casual sex, to recreational drug use, to abortion. The presupposition seems to be that it can be assumed that human behavior will nearly always sink to our most base desires (of course, progressives believe the same, when one considers their views on capitalism and the need to regulate Big Business).

(I don't mean to imply that there are no religious progressives; rather, I have focused the discussion here in this manner simply because traditional religious affiliation statistically correlates much higher with what we call contemporary conservatism than it does with what we call liberalism.)

Progressives are going to have the most trouble with Rand, which is not so surprising, considering her writings were created and her philosophy developed as a form of explicit opposition to the groundswell of socialism that shaped her early life and vision. Rand's ideas run counter to every feeling that resides “deep in their progressive bones”—and make no mistake, emotional responses are the driving force behind contemporary liberalism.

Progressives will denounce Rand's views on objective perceptions of reality, because they believe life is too complex and subjective to be understood from a neutral stance; this is, after all, why they advanced postmodernism as a supposedly legitimate analytical tool—“A is A?” Make that claim to a postmodernist and start the absurdity timer; I guarantee logic is Gone in 30 Seconds—and demonstrate such affinity for relativist thinking. While Rand states, “the task of man's consciousness is to perceive reality, not to create or invent it,” liberals believe that both individual and groupthink constructions of reality are perfectly acceptable, as the emotional perceptions such individuals or groups experience are our most important form of “reality,” and will likewise reject Rand's claim that Reason must govern man's action, because the idea that logic should override emotional response seems to them to be cold and uncaring.

I shouldn't even have to mention the progressive response to the Objectivist rejection of determinism, because it is another of the foundational underpinnings of the liberal position: our troubles as individuals are almost always the result of something other than “choice”—be it racism, sexism, some other form of opression, genetics, economic disparity, poor parenting, poor schooling, or plain bad luck. By way of extension, they will abhor her ethical and political positions, because to their manner of thinking, the only fair response to such inequities is a socialist response whereby we utilize the power of the State to somehow eliminate these variables and “level the playing field.” Unsurprisingly, liberals see this as altruism in its greatest form, albeit a sort of “forced altruism”—an oxymoron which seems perfectly logical to them, somehow. I suppose it stems in some fashion from the progressives' misunderstanding of economics as a zero-sum game, where capital is finite and discrete and, therefore, some must win and some must lose. It is thus easy, by extension, to generalize such thinking to power relationships, intellectual capital, and other areas where one might find “satisfaction” or a lack thereof.

Conclusions

It most likely will never occur to those of the socialist bent that Rand accounts for these variables when she states, “That which you call your soul or spirit is your consciousness, and that which you call 'free will' is your mind's freedom to think or not, the only will you have, your only freedom. [This is] the choice that controls all the choices you make and determines your life and character.” [emphases added] It seems unfathomable to liberals that anyone would choose to be impoverished, or “enslaved” into a life of menial labor. The reality is that this is precisely what people do when they neglect to hone their potential capacities in favor of some easier, chosen, non-thinking alternative.

Likewise, it won't occur to liberal or conservative that anything other than the Objectivist ideal she describes, whereby each man assumes responsibility for his own successes and failings, is an unethical attempt to transform the individual into something other than what was intended, something other than his ultimate potential. Usurping man's free will in the name of some perceived greater good—be it outlawing gay marriage to save us from the sin of homosexuality, or extorting us of our income to outlaw the sin of poverty—demonstrates a fundamental lack of trust in the whole of mankind.

And so in this, at the very least, Ayn Rand and I may just stand in agreement: each person is beholden to himself, should rise to his own challenges, accept his own failures, revel in his own accomplishments, regret his own sins, strive toward his own fulfillment, and stop wallowing in the misguided belief that someone else controls his life. If someone else controls your life, it's only because you chose to allow it.

QWR 01/2007

2007-01-07T12:53:00.000-08:00

To educate a man in mind and not in morals is to educate a menace to society.

— Theodore Roosevelt

another quote worth remembering

2006-12-16T01:53:00.000-08:00

As fine a document as the [U.S.] Constitution is, the Antifederalists, who were not frivolous men, raised some prescient criticisms. Patrick Henry was concerned that the “general welfare” clause would someday be interpreted to authorize practically any federal power that might be imagined. Others feared that the taxing power would prove an instrument of tyranny in the hands of the new government. Still others feared the power of the judicial branch, whose pronouncements on the meaning of the Constitution may well run counter to the common understanding of the Framers but against whom the people would have little recourse. That the Antifederalists may have been on to something should be evident from a casual glance at the federal government today, which is not exactly the modest institution scrupulously confining itself to its enumerated powers that the Framers intended.

— Professor Thomas E. Woods, Jr., Ph.D.

reflection on midterm elections

2006-11-11T04:34:00.000-08:00

'Nuff said, don't you think?

Nomenclature

2006-10-26T01:08:00.000-07:00

All I'm saying is that we probably need a new name for permafrost. Suggestions?

random thought of the week

2006-09-04T06:39:00.000-07:00

I'm beginning to believe irony always prevails, if we are willing to wait long enough for the payoff.

// end

At left, Steve Irwin (February 22, 1962 – September 4, 2006) and er, wives?

The Book of the VIP Kurt

2006-08-25T05:04:00.000-07:00

[Post by M. — Correct authorship lost in transfer to new hosting platform.]

There is a VIP named Kurt, who became famous because he said this looks like a certain sphincter. Unless he became famous for other reasons, like always being wrong about the fate of mankind, which despite his grave predictions has utterly failed to destroy itself. Or unless he became famous for writing novels that never seem to travel in a straight line. Or unless maybe he never became famous and is just a figment of this chronicler's imagination, which would suit VIP Kurt just fine, frankly.

The way Kurt sees it, man is too stupid by half to survive much longer, especially if the U.S. remains the World's Most Chosen Nation, a rather astute observation really, even though his subtlety—which, let's face it, isn't all that subtle, yet is too subtle by far for most—would be lost on those who are doing their darndest to prove Kurt right. In his novels and short stories, Kurt reckons that three factors—man's reliance on machines, the tendency of one tribe to attack another tribe with the latest transformation of the pointed stick because Tribe B has something that Tribe A wants, and the World's Most Chosen Nation has entered into some sort of death pact with God—will lead to the End of the World as We Know It, a rather frightening prospect, but the age being what it is, with uberviolent video games and depressing crime statistics, it takes a lot to frighten even the most cynical of children of the World's Most Chosen Nation. This depresses Kurt to no end, and whenever he's given a chance, the old bugger whines to whomever is listening that the forces of evil out to destroy the world are in Washington and not, say, in the Middle East, home of a lot of men—whom Kurt calls heroes—who would wipe out half the world if given half a chance. While this line of thinking appeals to many people who have chosen the Way of Harry and thus have no intention of thinking about anything any more, others simply laugh at the coot and suggest to him that it might be time for a nap, which would suit Kurt nicely, frankly, because he's tired of life.

One day, after calling Towelheads sweet and honorable and noble because they all they really want when you get right down to it is to kill all of the Israelites and the Yanks and the Frogs and the Bloody Brits and all those who worship Allah—which is what they call God, for some reason—in a different way than they worship Allah, Kurt decided he would take that nap after all. And as he was about to enter the realm of sleep he was visited by a robot from the future, who spoke to Kurt about just how right he was.

It doesn't matter what people believe (said the futuristic robot), mankind is doomed, and those who don't recognize this fact will eventually be made to look like fools, even if they will be too dead to feel embarrassed, not to mention all their relatives and friends and enemies. Everyone who has given it half a thought, which is not enough, I'll grant you, realizes that the world can't continue like it has without something big, really big happening, like a nuclear holocaust or the development of a suffocating atmosphere or a gang of riotous machines or any of the other things you wrote about, wiping out the most evolved ape—and pretty much everything else—forever. Does this make you smile (asked the futuristic robot)? I knew it would. In the future, there are several futures, time not being linear and all. In all but a few of the parallel universes, mankind has already killed itself off, but I'm sure this doesn't surprise you in the least.

Sure, (said the robot,) technology has given mankind the power to eliminate hunger and poverty and disease, but it has also made man lazy and stupid and uncaring. In one parallel universe, ubersmart machines realized this and decided the advanced apes weren't worth keeping around.

Vengence, American style

2006-08-18T05:03:00.000-07:00

[Post by M. — Correct authorship lost in transfer to new hosting platform.]

The text for this week's study comes from the Book of the Damn Yankees, Chapters 106 and 107:

[T]hen came the day that will live in infamy,
Forever,
Never to be forgotten by the Yanks,
Ever,
As long as there is still a single Yank alive to remember the exact moment when Japan and Germany lost the war,
Which happened at seven o'clock A.M., Pacific time,
On December 7th,
1940-something,
When about a million Nip planes and ships came out of nowhere,
And attacked Pearl Harbor,
Without warning,
Completely by surprise,
And killed about two thousand Yanks,
For no reason.

The Yanks were mad about Pearl Harbor, of course,
But maybe not quite as mad as they were surprised,
And offended,
Because how did the Nips ever get the idea that a sneak attack on the Yanks was a good idea?
After all, it hasn't ever been a good idea to make the Yanks mad,
Like with the Alamo,
And the Maine,
And the Lusitania,
Which should have tipped off the Nips that if they did something to the Yanks,
Something unspeakable like Pearl Harbor, for example,
The Yanks would remember it,
Forever,
And find a way to get even,
No matter how much it cost,
And now that you mention it,
Remember the Lusitania?
Which explains why the Yanks declared war on Japan and Germany within a few hours of the attack on Pearl Harbor,
Because they were all going to get it now,
As soon as the Yanks remember where they'd put their army and their weapons and other stuff like that.

As BJ Clinton, the 42nd Emperor of the World's Most Chosen Nation, ascended to the throne, Americans were feeling pretty good about themselves. We had finally won a war, for one. It wasn't much of a war, at all. And it was mostly fought on the Cable News Channel, and at night, because the bombs looked really cool after the sun went down. Saddamn Insane and his army of Towelheads invaded Kuwait, another country of Towelheads, so that they could steal their oil. Unless it was the Kuwaiti Towelheads who were stealing Saddamn's oil and war widows, but that can't possibly be right, at all. Because otherwise the World's Most Chosen Nation wouldn't have interfered, which was their foreign policy after all, ever since Vietnam, which America would never forget, ever, not after all the body bags and the millions of dead Slanty Eyes and the rise of Piss Pot and the killing fields and so on and so forth.

The economic policies of Ronald Raygun, the 40th Emperor, were bearing fruit and everyone was getting rich. So rich in fact, that by the middle of the BJ Clinton's reign, men running virtual companies, selling virtual products, at a virtual marketplace called the Virtunet were becoming very rich. In fact, if an American came out of the '90s not rich, it was a sign he was a moron. But if there's one thing America isn't short of, it's morons.

When Americans are busy getting rich, they forget about important things like foreign policy, which they were never keen on anyway, at all. So when a Towelhead planted a bomb in the World Trade Center, no one much cared that BJ Clinton didn't do anything about it. Why distract them from making money? Or when he didn't do anything about Saddamn Insane's assassination attempt on Busch Lite, the 41st Emperor of the World's Most Chosen Nation. Or when two embassies were bombed by Towelheads in AIDSica. Or when the U.S.S. Cole was bombed by Towelheads. BJ Clinton himself was too busy. Living up to his first name is time consuming and all, and smearing the images of the women he raped and fondled and sexually assaulted is a full-time work for entire law firms, not to mention, being an Emperor who liked to air his personal, political and financial dirty laundry in public, there was Whitewash, Travelwash, Documentwash, Brownwash, Fosterwash, Lyingwash, Semenwash, Flowerswash, Trainwash, Buddhistmonkwash, Lasaterwash and probably a few other -washes as well.

Yes, and though the Virtunet bubble burst, causing the Techdaq to lose half its value and the Capitalist Pig Industrial Not-Really-an-Average Average to plummet, America was flying pretty high, and when it was time for BJ Clinton to step down and cease with all the washes (but not before Pardonwash and making off with the White House silverware), the world was a simmering teapot. And after a series of embarrassing incidents involving a surreal number of Floridians named Chad and whether or not they knew how to count and if they had dimples or were pregnant or well-hung, or something like that, W was chosen by the Electoral College to be the 43rd Emperor of the World's Most Chosen Nation, even though more American people wanted Al Bore and his lockboxes for some reason, but that can't possibly be right.

No one much remembers what happened during the first eight months or so of W's reign, other than a prude was appointed to the position of the highest law enforcer, and W mispronounciated a rather remarkable number of words in front of reporters who were unabashedly and unbiasedly giddy about it. There might have been a recession too, but because W was a Republican of sorts, he wasn't responsible for it for some reason. Some Americans remember something about a guy named Benedict Jeffords, but it's all pretty hazy, as is everything that happened before the day that will live in infamy, the day no American will forget, ever, so long as anyone who was alive on September 11th, 2000-something, and watched in horror the aftermath of a ragtag bunch of Towelheads who commandeered four airplanes and crashed them into the World Trade Center, two buildings built by "public corporations," and thus symbols of American capitalism for some reason; the Pentagon, the symbol of American military might; and Pennsylvania, the symbol of American Amish, or something like that. Uh-oh. The world held its collective breath. They knew the excrement was about to hit the proverbial fan, and no one would be safe from the scattering scat.

At first Americans weren't angry. They were surprised and offended. Because how did the Towelheads ever get the idea that a sneak attack on the Yanks was a good idea? After all, it hasn't ever been a good idea to make the Yanks mad, like with the Alamo, and the Maine, and the Lusitania, and Pearl Harbor, which should have tipped off the Towelheads that if they did something to the Yanks, something unspeakable like flying airplanes into the World Trade Center and the Pentagon and Amishland, for example, the Yanks would remember it, forever, and find a way to get even, no matter how much it cost, and how many lives had to be sacrificed, and now that you mention it, remember the U.S.S. Cole? Which explains why the Yanks declared war on the concept of terror within a few weeks of the attack on New York and Washington and Amishville or whatever, because all the Towelheads were all going to get it now, as soon as the Yanks remember where they'd put their army and their weapons and decided which Towelhead country was going to get it first. And they were going to get it. W said as much as he stood upon the rubble of the World Trade Center and said America was not going to forget or forgive, only more eloquently as it was by all accounts W's finest hour, but that can't possibly be right.

As Americans did their best to cope, the country music folks came out, with breathtaking speed, an astonishing number of songs telling Americans how the Towelheads were really going to get it. And the entertainment folks came out, with breakingtaking speed, an astonishing number of tributes to the victims of September 11th. And comedians pretty much stayed on the sidelines, because no one was ready to laugh. And as the Senators and Congressmen decided which country was going to get it, suddenly Americans developed an unsatiable appetite for patriotism and all things red, white and blue. They bought flags for their homes, until every home on every block in every town in America had one. Then they bought flags for their cars and offices and lapels and coffeetables and so on. The entire economy was based on the manufacturing, distribution and sales of American flags. And just as Americans were at the peak of their frothing patriotism, W decided which country was going to get. Towelibadland.

Towelibadland? Why not, they said. The Towelibads did do quite a number of things particularly un-American, which normally would be expected from a country that wasn't America, but after September 11tth, you were either with us or you were a Towelhead, and you would get yours soon enough. Indeed, the Towelibad were known to stone homosexuals, which made Americans, who as a rule would only taunt homosexuals unmercifully, uneasy. And they would pull the fingernails off of their women if they showed their face, which for Americans was way out of line. And while American merely overindulged their children with an excess of toys, the Towelibad would cane children who played with a kite or listened to music, which Allah, the Towelhead god of peace and tolerance, didn't like, at all, according to Towelibad. Not to mention, back when the world in general and Americans in particular weren't paying any attention, the Towelibad blew up two giant Buddhas, because they blocked the view of heaven, or something like that.

Americans started to get excited. Finally we were going to get even. We were going to bomb them back to the Stone Age, was a common joyful exclamation. But the joy was diminished a good deal when TV footage from the country showed Towelibadland had already been bombed back to the Stone Age seemingly. What fun is that? But there was at this time no one left to bomb. Most Towelhead leaders had the good sense to say the right things to America, lest they become targets themselves, which no one would want unless he were...Insane.

Saddamn, who traded his good sense for a rifle to shoot off whenever he appeared on his balcony in front of admiring countymen, did not say the right things, at all. When he wasn't shooting his rifle, he was shooting his mouth off to anyone who would listen about how he was going to use Great Weapons, which he didn't have, against America, and how the United Foolishness would never find these weapons, which makes sense, because they didn't exist. And it was rather unfortunate for him and his countrymen that it was about this time that W felt he needed to expand the war so he would kill more Towelheads and bring democracy to more Towelhead countries, whether they wanted it or not, whether they deserved it or otherwise. And so, against the wishes of the entire world, except the British and the Poles, and maybe a few other countries here and there, and perhaps to piss off the Frogs more than anything, the Americans invaded Saddamn Insane's country for the second time in a dozen years. And as much as the world wanted to blame America and W and Republicans and spineless Democrats, the Towelheads should have known better. Killing three thousand Americans is not a good idea, at all. And when the dust settles, perhaps two decades from now, there will be hundreds of thousands of dead Towelhead men, women and children, which still may not satisfy some Americans, who will never forget, ever. And the world will be reminded, you do not do something so heinous without the heinosity being returned to you 10, 20, 30 fold. It's hard to believe that the foreign policy of the World's Most Chosen Nation can be so simple: "Leave us the hell alone, and all's well. Fuck with us, and we will rain terror and more bombs than you can shake a pointy stick at upon you and your people for as long as it takes until our vegence is sated. And we're not fucking kidding." But someone some time will choose to ignore this warning. And may Allah have mercy on his soul.

j's random thought of the week

2006-04-30T06:10:00.000-07:00

aside from gas station men's rooms, strip clubs are quite probably the most disgusting places on earth.

/ that is all.

an interesting tidbit

2005-11-27T06:42:00.000-08:00

an advertisement for “the best and cheapest place in the city”—a photography studio run by none other than mr. williams himself, whomever that may be. still, of interest to me, as i grew up in this little town...

where might this be on portage street? any help would be most appreciated...

political perspectives

2005-10-25T07:58:00.000-07:00

lately, i've been deliberating political ideologies and the possible underlying causes for same. i find the topic fascinating, particularly when one considers the ferocity with which proponents defend their views (i've found the same can be said of religious beliefs, but little else). why do we believe so passionately? and what consistent underlying issues—political, psychological, spiritual—if any, lead to these passionate beliefs?

my ruminations are turning up some powerful dichotomies that may buttress some of these ideologies. though most are certainly not unexpected, some seem typically ignored, if not by political scientists then certainly by popular culture and even society in general.

i would like to explore these dichotomies through a series of writings. nothing formal; like all good philosophers, i am just thinking out loud, as it were. additionally, my formal education rarely touched on any of these themes. while this is a sad commentary on the state of public education in its own right, i mention it here as a simple preemptive measure: if “experts” have defined terminology related to these, i welcome you pointing me in the right direction to learn more. as always, no flames, please.

you ain't hard, but she was

2005-10-25T03:12:00.000-07:00

Surprised?

2005-10-07T15:10:00.000-07:00

You are a
Social Liberal
(81% permissive)

and an
Economic Conservative
(80% permissive)

You are best described as a

Libertarian

Link: The Politics Test on Ok Cupid

So I'm Crass in the Face of Tragedy

2005-09-05T10:51:00.000-07:00

A thought occurred to me this week.

In our politically correct culture, typically absent true reflection, I am sure many will see my thought as vulgar and insensitive in light of the humanitarian tragedy still raging on the Gulf of Mexico. I think, however, it raises one of the most important questions we must now face as a nation. Evacuating those stranded in the south is of course our most pressing concern. However, absent my ability to do anything to assist in that effort, the best I can do is thrust my two cents into the important follow-up discussion.

The question: what is to be done with New Orleans?

At left, an artist's rendering of the city of Atlantis, no longer dry.

As I listened to the commentary this week, pundit after pundit stated with confidence that New Orleans will be rebuilt, its culture too important to lose beneath the salt water of Lake Pontchartrain. It is well worth the cost, so their logic goes, in order to preserve such rich history.

On its face, I find it difficult to argue with such a position. New Orleans did, in fact, have a deep, rich culture the likes of which one might not find elsewhere in the United States. As usual the pragmatist in me takes issue with the practicality, or lack thereof, involved. After spending billions to rebuild the city where it stands, a repeat of the current disaster will be an inevitability. C'mon, it's not as if no one expected this, and it is more than logical to assume it will happen again.

So, we are compelled to ask: is it worth the inevitable disaster, inevitable loss of life, and inevitable financial costs to rebuild the city?

The answer is a resounding “no.”

At left, the city of New Orleans today, also no longer dry.

What was my thought? Relocate the city of New Orleans, allow the old city to flood, and declare it a protected national park and/or historic area. People would pay large sums for generations to take glass-bottom tours and scuba dive in the ruins of the city. Disturbing the buildings and artifacts would be prohibited, and the revenue collected would be paid to those who owned property in the city.

At first, I was surprised that this had not occurred to anyone else. I was, however, able to locate one other voice of agreement online. I suppose this shouldn't be such a shock. Most of us are still too stunned to consider the long-term questions involved, while others—probably many others—are so horrified by the thought of being seen as “insensitive” as to not voice such an idea. I'm not all that concerned; anyone who thinks of me as insensitive obviously knows nothing of me.

I am sure politics will soon overwhelm this debate, and unless voices of reason speak without fear on the subject, New Orleans will be rebuilt, and we will relive this tragedy again, perhaps countless times.

The Feds v. Katrina

2005-09-05T04:54:00.000-07:00

Hey, when someone finds the part in the United States Constitution that mentions the Federal government must use my tax dollars to provide disaster relief to the several States, let me know, 'kay?

Thanks.

The Rules of Grammar and Hurricanes

2005-09-02T08:33:00.000-07:00

Stephanie Tubbs Jones made a statement today. Of course, missing from the prepared politispeak press release was this gem of eloquence also offered by the Congresswoman on the Katrina disaster and rescue efforts:

“It ain't about pointin' fingers.”

First of all, the words are “isn't” and “pointing,” Congresswoman.

Second of all... well, actually, I suppose the “first of all” pretty much sums up everything that needs to be said.

"Public" Spaces

2005-08-20T12:52:00.000-07:00

By the author of the “new” Ministry of Reshelving project, found here:

We should define public spaces as the spaces where you can find the public. Rarely will you find the public in public plazas.

Some, myself included, would suggest this more a function of the community in which one lives. Some public plazas are, in fact, quite busy. But more importantly is this comment:

We should treat privatized spaces that open their doors to the public, make money off the public, and serve for better or for worse as the primary public and social spheres of our society, more like public spaces.

Sounds suspiciously socialist. Wouldn't Orwell be proud? More to come on this, once I have the time to sit down and write.

UPDATE: See the comments for a little more of what I was getting at.

Why Iraq?

2005-08-13T07:45:00.000-07:00

I recently read a hypothesis that all the pretenses for war in Iraq were simply cover for our true motivation: we went to Iraq to protect Israel from possible attack. I don't know if this is, in fact, the case, but at this point, I can't say I much care.

And you know, so what if that was the actual motivation for the Iraq war? What's wrong with protecting Israel? Remember the previous Iraq war? What was the reason for that “little skirmish” back in the early 90s?; man, it's right on the tip of my tongue... Oh, yeah: protecting Kuwait!

So the suggestion is that protecting Jews is somehow horrible, but protecting Muslims from the same dictator is somehow fine. Damned anti-Semites. Here's an idea: how about everyone deserves protection from a dictator who will gas his own civilians en masse?

Once a Boomer, Always a Boomer

2005-08-07T03:54:00.000-07:00

From the glory that is Instapunk:

What is important is what happens now that the most narcissistic and self-indulgent generation in American history [the Baby Boomer generation] embarks on the great adventure of aging. It's not going to be pretty. The same folks who demanded that the world be remade in their image when they got to college in the '60s will insist -- just as they have in every other tedious phase and fad of the past 40 years -- that meeting their needs is all that matters.

You really need to follow the link and read the entire post, because it is truly terrifying and—as always—spot on. We are all screwed.

Even More SUWWIAF

2005-08-07T03:23:00.000-07:00

I think I may need to post a comprehensive list somewhere.

Having a million ideas and no strength or motivation
People who only mistrust, blame, and see malevolence in every corner
Knowing I must exercise five days a week for the rest of my life
It being too hot to even walk in the park

"Artemis Fowl": Been There, Done That.

2005-08-02T15:37:00.000-07:00

Eoin Colfer's “Artemis Fowl” allowed me to exercise my most recent resolution: I will no longer feel obligated to finish a piece of literature simply because I started reading it.

This children's novel has all the makings of a story I should enjoy: a twelve year old evil genius with an enormous family fortune and personal assassin at his disposal, a hidden subculture of fantastic creatures—trolls, fairies, etc.—wielding magic, and oh-so-much delicious technology coming into play as the two sides battle. It seemed like the perfect kid-lit blend of fantasy and science fiction. Sales (the book quickly became a NYT bestseller), awards (e.g., British Book Awards 2001 Children's Book of the Year), and the recommendation of a colleague all lent support.

I decided I could go no further after reading approximately one third of the book. It was the morality-play message that disgusted me to the point of abandonment. What's worse, this message lies in stark contrast to the novel's other “fun” elements (for example, the fairy technologies), a “minor” point of which Colfer seems blissfully unaware as he preaches the evils of mankind.

There is not one human character of redeeming quality anywhere in the first one hundred pages of the book; instead, we are provided with protagonists drawn from “others.” As humans go, we are treated primarily to a prepubescent evil mastermind and his trained bodyguard, assassin, errand-boy. Even the secondary human characters—an annoying teenage girl, an insane mother—and two-bit supporting cast—a creepy Vietnamese con man, some angry dock workers itching to brawl—are full of arrogance, acting of pure self-interest and/or malevolence. This lack of sympathetic humans occurred to me after I put the book down for the last time, and it makes a great deal of sense, considering Colfer's primary message.

Said message goes thusly: human are destroying the planet. Yes, you heard me right; the book serves as yet another soapbox for the pronouncement that our (Western) crimes against nature will probably result in the End Of The World—or, at the very least, spoil everything for “everyone else” (in this case, fairies replace the more common victims in such tales of greed and oppression: the Third World impoverished). There is plenty of nature-worship to go around: indictments of pollution, animal-murder, and so on. More dreck with the intent to brainwash masquerading as children's literature. I should have known; no wonder it won those British literary awards.

Some particularly brilliant quotes (with my notes following. –djd):

“Although she was enjoying the night air, Holly could taste traces of pollution. The [humans] destroyed everything they came into contact with.” (Extremely typical anti-corporate hyperbole. –djd)

“Since the humans had begun experimenting with mineral drilling, more and more fairies had been driven out of the shallow forts and into the depth and security of Haven City.” (Blatant dig at ANWR exploration; pun definitely intended. –djd)

“She called out to the dolphins and they rose to the surface, leaping from the water to match her pace. She could see the pollution in them, bleaching their skin white and giving them red sores on their backs. [Humans] had a lot to answer for.” (No comment needed. –djd)

“[L]ike Foaly said, the hull had a high lead content, even the paint was lead based! The entire boat was a floating eco hazard!” (Ditto. –djd)

“The smell of death and pain lingered in the blood-swabbed decks. Many noble creatures had died here, died and been dissected for a few bars of soap and some heating oil. [...] Humans were such barbarians.” (Soap, oil, and food—which was conveniently overlooked—for the Inuits; of course, who needs to eat, avoid disease, and not freeze to death? Save the whales! *eyeroll* –djd)

Of course, Colfer neglects to notice (at least within the first hundred pages) the odd contradictions he has also created. For example, all his eco-friendly little sprites are packing heat that can “vaporize a bull elephant,” which is apparently just fine, for some unexplained reason. Or that every piece of equipment they carry is possibly leaking radiation and waste, as they are all powered by nuclear batteries, because, as you know, that's exactly the kind of thing someone who was overly concerned about pollution, dolphins, whales, and lead would say about nuclear power.

Regardless, we've heard all this before. Yes, the environment is important. No, we must not seek to brainwash our children, especially in contentious areas where the jury is clearly still out, as it is on nearly all controversial ecological topics.

Others

2005-08-02T11:27:00.000-07:00

And all the poor bastards who never had a chance will probably never get one either,
² Because now the ones who didn't get imprisoned or enslaved or killed are stuck with what the Chosen Nations gave them,
³ Including the desire for material possessions,
⁴ And the lust for power,
⁵ And fanatical beliefs about politics and religion,
⁶ And corruption,
⁷ And disease,
⁸ And famine,
⁹ And pollution,
¹⁰ And bastard cultures full of poverty, despair, and violence,
¹¹ Not to mention missionaries,
¹² And debts,
¹³ And dictators,
¹⁴ And wars,
¹⁵ And a lot of patronizing lectures about what it takes to be civilized,
¹⁶ From the people who know the most about civilization,
¹⁷ Namely, all the Chosen Nations who ruined their lives in the first place.
¹⁸ Poor poor bastards.

—Others, Chapter 8, The Boomer Bible, R.F. Laird

[For those uninitiated: Laird's writings map the minds of unthinking Americans. This passage reflects the manner in which a large majority of political and/or ignorant Westerners think about the Third World, not the reality. Satire, folks. –djd]

SUWWIAF

2005-04-07T10:03:00.000-07:00

add another to the stuff up with which i am fed:

1. uncorrected misspellings of “gandhi.”

perhaps it's because of words like ghost, ghetto, ghastly, and (quite similar sounding) ghana.

still, the “h” is just before the “i,” people.

All Reporters Suck

2005-03-05T04:24:00.000-08:00

This is not news:

“The incident could rekindle anti-war sentiment in Italy, where public opinion opposed the U.S.-led invasion of Iraq, and opposition parties could use the shooting to challenge the government.” [emphases added]

No, this is what we call a reporter (apparently, a very shitty reporter by the name of Robin Pomeroy) engaging in conjecture, speculation, guesswork. Comments like these (and the article was riddled with them) belong in an Op-Ed column, not “unbiased news reporting.”

Similarly, from the same piece:

“Berlusconi defied public opinion by sending 3,000 troops to Iraq after the U.S.-led invasion in March 2003 and has rejected past calls to withdraw the troops.”

This is also not news. This happened nearly two years ago. Again, for the peanut gallery.

End transmission.

Okay, because you asked... (Apologies in advance for the rant)

2005-02-25T14:22:00.000-08:00

I have received email questioning the inclusion of the following entry on the original Stuff Up With Which I Am Fed list:

People who do their grocery shopping in medical scrubs

For the record, it’s not simply grocery shopping—it’s completing any public errand while wearing scrubs. Grocery shopping is a popular one, but there are many others. I see people at the mall, getting dinner at a restaurant, walking their dog on the fitness trail—all in O.R. scrubs—and I want to scream. I want to walk right up to them, stretch open my enormous mouth, and let loose directly into their faces.

Why all the hostility? Do I harbor ill will toward all those in the medical profession? Certainly not. But this tactic is such an obvious ploy for recognition, it simply demands my ire. I'm serious.

“Ploy? What in the world are you talking about, J?”

Yes, ploy.

Listen, I am certain these folks are busy. We are all busy. But doing your chores and casually living your life in scrubs has nothing to do with being too busy to change in 99% of the cases. It’s about status. It’s about showing us who’s better. It’s about putting the rest of us in our place, and I am the one who has decided to stand up and protest.

I protest as emphatically as I would if a Nobel Prize winner wore her medal to the local Applebee’s, just so the rest of us know we are in the presence of true and recognized genius.

I protest as emphatically as I would if a Pharisee began praying loudly on the beauty of all creation in the flower garden at the local park, just so we all see who is the most pious and, as a result, most favored by God.

I protest as emphatically as I would if a male porn star did his laundry with his johnson hanging out, just to show us who has the goods and deserves the commensurate admiration.

Okay, we get it: you didn’t flunk out of med school. You make lots of money scraping plantar's warts from the bottom of our impoverished feet. Congratulations. We understand: you are absolutely certain that you are better than the rest of us, that your degree somehow verifies you are more intelligent than we are, even if you’ve never had a creative insight over the course of your entire life. We’ve all seen Alec Baldwin’s little monologue in Malice, okay? “You are God.” We know what you are all about.

Now, go home and change before I splatter your cheeks with my coffee-stained spittle. And while you’re at it, get rid of the Lexus LX with built-in TV/DVD entertainment center and teach your kids how to play I Spy or Four-Legged Animals.

explanation, please?

2005-02-25T07:35:00.000-08:00

if possible, will you take a moment to explain for me how a fifteen-year-old can make this statement with a straight face: “capitalism is dangerous, not to mention i am a socialist anyway.” someone? please?

Also from the Lost and Found

2005-02-19T08:01:00.000-08:00

Originally posted October 2003, if I recall correctly:

You know what I don't care for?
Pumpkins.
They just sit there, lookin' all round and orange.
With green phalli on their heads.
And so many seeds inside.
I mean, c'mon.
If it were up to them, the whole world would be covered in pumpkins.
Apparently.
But there is pumpkin pie, I guess.
Which I enjoy now and again.
With lots of Cool Whip™ brand topping.
Oh, and jack-o-lanterns.
But those are less about the pumpkins.
More about our skills with pumpkins.
As educated individuals.
Educated in the ways of pumpkin manipulations, that is.
Anyway.

Discovered: SUWWIAF, The Original

2005-02-19T06:28:00.000-08:00

Discovered in a dark archived internet corner just today: my original list.

Stuff up with which I am fed

Minivans with TVs in them
People who do their grocery shopping in medical scrubs
Democrats
Republicans
Needing more money
Music composed before 1912

Fallacies and “Freedom of Speech”

2005-02-18T07:21:00.000-08:00

Despite precedent, some viewpoints are not worthy of institutional support

Recent events have me thinking on the misuse—or at the very least, misinterpretations, though I suspect the intent precludes such cases as being innocuous in any way—of our Constitutional freedoms to promote ideologies based on flawed logic, or even blatant falsehoods. The intent of the Founders has been perverted to the extent that protections are demanded by those who deserve none. The time has come for logical people to put an end to such nonsense and discredit those who support fallacious argument. Welcome aboard.

Extremists regularly trot out the “Freedom of Speech” argument as support for this promotion of some flawed ideology. The argument is misused in a number of common scenarios, some of which have been featured prominently in the news and “new media blogsphere” (how we have come to regard as series of what are essentially “public diaries”—like this one—as a media source is a bit beyond me, but a question for contemplation at a later time) over the past few weeks.

Consider, for example, the (for now, let's say “hypothetical”) tenured college professor who claims First Amendment protection as he espouses hateful—perhaps racist, definitely bigoted—opinions based on, shall we say, the “liberal interpretation of facts.” To put it more bluntly: ideologies based on rumor, innuendo, misinformation, or even outright lie. Aside from steadfastly maintaining the absolute veracity of his “facts”—even when confronted with evidence to the contrary—such a professor will often claim that his message is just as valid as any other, and therefore deserves equal treatment, perhaps even preferential treatment, if his message is one of support to any number of minority opinions, pet causes (of the Liberal variety, of course), or other typical politically correct blather. In this way, much hateful proselytizing is presented as an “alternative viewpoint.” Even if the ideology is presented as one of opinion, its mere promotion by an established institution—whether made by an employee or even simply an invited speaker matters not—provides tacit support and, therefore, lends credibility to the message.

The often-overlooked root problem with such presentation is that—as should be obvious to anyone with a modicum of intelligence—such messages are not “just as valid as any other,” nor do they constitute an “alternative viewpoint” which demands presentation in the name of fairness. In fact, the argument can reasonably be made that a message based on rumor, innuendo, misinformation, or lie is not valuable to anyone at all, save the person or persons who mean to profit from said message, be such capital political, financial, or otherwise. As such, these ideologies should not be provided a credible forum for expression—for example, a college campus—until they are supported with both evidence and sound reasoning.

As an Originalist, I in no way advocate government censorship of ideas. Such a professor is welcome to preach his hate publicly as he sees fit; the First Amendment clearly protects even the most insane rant borne of pure fabrication. He is free to beg, borrow, or steal the street-corner soapbox upon which he will stand as he spreads his noise into the atmosphere. (Of course, one doubts that those in the academia who are so quick to use hate-filled rhetoric when indoctrinating a captive audience of nineteen-year-olds would be as brash in espousing such nonsense without the protections of reputation, tenure, salary, and ivory tower walls guarded by campus security; stand such a professor face-to-face with a Marine veteran unimpressed by his Harvard degree, and see how well his convictions hold.) This in no way, however, transfers to providing governmental or institutional support for such messages. He certainly shouldn't draw a six-figure income and four months vacation for the effort.

Alas, it may be far too late to save the reputations of institutions that have supported this sort of ridiculousness. They have willfully and systematically sacrificed prestige for advancement of political ideology. What's worse, this is done not necessarily because the institution holds allegiance to such ideologies; rather, in many cases, it seems small bands of activists seize control of departments, institutions, and affiliated organizations, bending these to their will—to their agendas. One is left to wonder why the more clearheaded among the student body and faculty don't take back their institutional—and along with it, their personal, by way of association—integrity. (Of course, similar consideration might be given to any fringe element who succeeds in hijacking a mainstream issue and using it as leverage in their personal vendettas: witness what the Moral Majority did for Christianity and militant feminists did for women's rights. And let's not forget how both of these turned abortion into a moneymaker. But I digress.)

It seems we are no longer able to discriminate fact from opinion, and more importantly, we don't comprehend that both rely upon the establishment of Truth. And therein lies the rub. The contemporary intelligencia is rife with relativist thinkers and postmodern deconstructionists. When one adopts the stance that words have no firm meaning and the only “truth” is what is true for me, at this moment, then one has thrown the presupposition that information can be factual right out the proverbial window. This essentially invalidates any statement, regardless of intent.

You see, without Truth, there can be no verifiable facts; without verifiable facts, there can be no valid opinion. Instead, we get strings of falsehoods improperly presented as opinion and accompanied by a bright red warning label that preemptively forbids the possibility for debate and demands we give credence. The idiocy of it all would be comic, were it not so tragic. We truly are living in a new Dark Age.

The Freedom of Speech provided our citizens is a freedom based on the honest pursuit of civil discourse and the whole development of Western philosophical thought. What good is to be gained by casting aside reasoned debate and logic based on fact in favor of demagoguery and the fiery polemic? And what is to be said of the society that allows its establishments of knowledge and learning to be transformed into machines of political statism, churning out legions of the brainwashed, in complete opposition to and disregard for their intended purpose? In reference to the United States, it has been said that 9/11 awoke the sleeping giant. In some sense, perhaps. The true giant, however, is much larger—enormous—and she is still hibernating, though one can nearly sense her waking. I certainly hope the time is at hand when she raises those heavy eyelids, forcing those who place personal gain before Truth to flee into obscurity or be crushed beneath our heels.

men can't self-actualize.

2005-02-15T13:56:00.000-08:00

know why?

because self-actualization requires one seek improvement from the straightforward and untainted desire to “be a better person,” and men don’t do this. most never even try. oh, there are a few who idealistically commit to the effort when they are young, but it all goes to hell as middle age approaches.

you see, men are socialized to desire admiration and recognition. (or perhaps they are genetically predisposed to it, but no matter; the whole nature vs. nurture argument is completely pointless, anyway. does it really matter if hitler was evil thanks to defective genes or defective upbringing? he was still evil. defective parents with or without defective dna aren't going to raise the next gandhi, no matter what social supports we provide. but i digress.) it is not enough for a man to be better than he was previously and know it. unless everyone else notices him “being better,” then he may as well spend his time playing checkers.

men want women to admire their “manliness” (all men define this for themselves, but the essence is always one of being perceived as powerful—physically, intellectually, financially, politically, whatever), want colleagues to admire their career successes, and want society to admire them as individuals for a combination of these and other factors.

when he is young, a man can rationalize a lack of admiration and recognition based on a lack of experience, exposure, or opportunity—always self-assured that “his time will come.” once a man reaches a certain age, however, it dawns on him that his most attractive days are behind him. he pours himself into his career, and not only is he not advancing, no one is even noticing his effort.

i suppose the argument can be made that this realization leads to the pursuit of self-actualizing behavior. but can “giving up” on the goals one honestly desires in order to focus on self-improvement truly be called self-actualization? i don’t believe so. and to be honest, i don’t see many men going gently into that good night, anyway. for most, it becomes a desperate and pitiful chase for unattainable admiration and recognition until the bitter end.

boy, i'm really looking forward to that.

Newsflash for the “New Media”

2005-02-15T06:28:00.000-08:00

Your diary—no matter how public—is not the New York Times.

Sorry.

are you kidding me?

2005-01-25T22:33:00.000-08:00

today, i was forced to provide my driver's license and sign for a packet of over the counter nasal decongestant. why are they tracking medication for my clogged sinuses? two reasons: all those fucking missouri meth labs and our new republican governor. george orwell was a genius.

Ding, dong! The cricket's dead!

2004-11-11T13:33:00.000-08:00

In response to email from my long-time friend Mike, with whom I correspond regarding politics frequently:

Death is always a tragedy. Arafat's included. We don't cheer his death, and that may be what separates us from the lunatic fringe of our society and the "Arab streets," two groups who gloat and dance in the face of others' despair. And while we don't throw a party, we equally refuse to hold a wake, raise a toast--we DO NOT MOURN HIM. We don't fete a man whose ideals are as twisted as the remains of the victims of suicide bombers, who rightfully belong on Arafat's hands. To honor him is to dishonor the victims. To praise him is to throw into disrepute the entirety of Western social and philosophical thought of the past five centuries. To even suggest grief, to pause for a moment of silence, to reflect on the life with fondness is an absolute absurdity at the satirical level, and sick and disgusting on the human level.

How dare you? Arafat was the kindest, gentlest soul you never met. Those children he sent to security checkpoints and street-side cafés with bombs strapped to their chests: they were doing God’s—pardon, Allah’s—work. And the (literally) billions of dollars Arafat embezzled? Well, I am sure it has been and will continue to be used to further finding a home for the “displaced” peoples (read, migrant nomads) who make up the Palestinian “culture.”

How many immigrants has the United States—or most any other nation—taken into its fold? Like it or not, the bulk of the world accepts refugees—political or otherwise. How many Palestinians now lay claim to the U.N.-branded “right of return?” More than three million? Got to hand it to the governments of Lebanon, Syria, Jordan, Egypt, and the like—they sure know compassion.

Today, I heard someone say something to this effect: “How could Arafat have been as bad as some suggest? He won the Nobel Peace Prize, after all. Doesn’t that mean he was a good man, devoted to peace?” I almost sprayed a mouthful of coffee. I didn’t know whether to laugh or cry, but I nearly choked.

“Yes, yes,” I said upon recovery (paraphrased). “Everyone knows that awards are given solely on the basis of merit and never for political reasons. Why, just look at this year’s Palme d’Or. I can’t think of anyone more peaceful than the man who ordered—not just tolerated or even sanctioned, but ordered—the murder of the 1972 Israeli Olympic team.”

By the way, did you know the United Nations is completely unbiased and not at all anti-Semitic, and that George W. Bush is the second coming of Jesus? I learn new Amazing Facts daily.

It took Arafat’s death for me to really examine everything that has happened in the Middle East—and specifically, Israel—over the past 100 years. I vaguely understood the history, but I decided I needed more. Plus, I didn’t much feel like doing work, anyway. So, I spent some time studying accounts available online. I barely scratched the surface, of course, but one thing has become pretty clear: yes, the Jews have not been completely reasonable or “politically intelligent” (or even trustworthy) over the past century, but man, the Arabs have been a lot fucking worse.

It seems that everyone but the United States has wanted Israel to take it up the ass for the better part of the 1900s, including Britain, whom I have always considered a Western ally.

You are a true gentleman and scholar, Mike. Personally, I believe more than a whispered “good riddance” is on order—much more, indeed. And while I don’t advocate a party in the streets, the mental image of Arafat burning in hell doesn’t bother me in the slightest, either.

yeah, i went there.

2004-10-30T04:54:00.000-07:00

“Noam Chomsky's thoughts on politics are about as valuable as a garbage collector's suggestions regarding the techniques of brain surgery.”

The lesser of two evils?

2004-09-22T12:57:00.000-07:00

I'm tired of people recommending I choose “the lesser of two evils.” It's still choosing evil, dumbass.

End transmission.

"appropriating" culture

2004-09-19T10:20:00.000-07:00

“To take this a step further, why would one laud Kronos (an all-white quartet) with one hand and decry (using loaded words like ‘exploit,’ ‘appropriate’ and ‘usurp’) with the other? By way of example, is Eminem a white ‘appropriator’ or an honest product of hiphop culture?

“Clearly, someone exposed to and enjoying an art form regularly, to the point that he or she adopts it as his or her own language, does not constitute appropriation. Appropriation would seem to imply a disingenuous ‘culture grab’ for self-serving purposes.

“A white girl who grows up listening to funk music who then becomes a popular funk artist is certainly not ‘appropriating.’ She is simply doing what is natural and enjoyable for her. This distinction seems noteworthy, in my opinion.”

—djd

Whoa.

2004-09-12T12:22:00.000-07:00

“...[T]hese young men share the awareness of a merciless fact that takes no prisoners into history: the responsibility passed on to the more ambitious artists of each generation is to learn how to redefine the fundamentals while maintaining the essences that give the art its scope and its grandeur.”

—Stanley Crouch

Capitalism Memo

2004-07-21T03:47:00.000-07:00

Capitalism is a social system based on the principle of individual rights.
—capitalism.org

Please, people, don't confuse “capitalism” with “free market economy.” One functions within—is, in fact, dependent upon the establishment of—the other.

Additionally, please refrain from referring to capitalism as a form of government. Societal systems—like capitalism, socialism, communism, et al.—are not systems of government. It is completely possible to have a communist democracy, socialist republic, or capitalist dictatorship.

That is all.

I don't care how this sounds...

2004-07-14T13:38:00.000-07:00

...but when Orson Scott Card—award winning sci-fi and historical fiction writer—makes statements such as these, I must feel vindicated in my way of thinking about life, history, politics, spirituality, and philosophy. Yes, he's a Mormon-conservative. No, I don't care.

But the reporters covering science in America today are so wretchedly miseducated that they don't even know what questions to ask when interviewing biased sources. And they are perfectly willing to make ridiculous statements--which would include any sentence beginning with "scientists believe." This is the postreligious equivalent of a fundamentalist preacher starting a sentence with "The Bible says." It invokes authority without context, without understanding, and without admitting the possibility of error.

...and then, later in the same article:

In every case of bias I just cited, the writers would almost certainly be outraged at my accusation that they were doing anything other than reporting the facts as clearly and fairly as possible. It doesn't occur to them that they are biased because they live in a box filled with people who share exactly the same bias. But that's how we human beings create our working definition of sanity--someone who shares the same worldview as his neighbors is "sane," and those who don't are crazy.

The number of thoughts presented here that parallel my own are many, but I would like to comment on a few key ideas:

American “journalists” understand neither (a) the definition of news, (b) what it means to actually report events without commentary or bias, (c) how to conduct an interview of meaningful questions and probe for Truth, nor (d) that they are enmeshed in presuppositions as to what is “true” and seem unable or unwilling to open their minds to alternative beliefs or explanations. I typically point to Kitty Couric and Mutt Lauer as convenient examples, but most any modern “serious journalist” is guilty of the same crimes. I am beginning to think Jon Stewart is the most legitimate journalist on television.

[In the name of clarity: “News” is supposed to report the facts (and only the facts) regarding an event that occurred in the previous 24 to 48 hours; it should not reference previous occurrences unless absolutely necessary. A news story is not supposed to convince me of anything or “assist” me in reaching an opinion. Additionally, the opinion of the reporter should NOT be evident upon reading/viewing the story.]

As an appeal to authority, expert opinion is—in most instances—a logical fallacy on its face. Any of you who know me and what I believe have undoubtedly heard me wail on this issue on more than one occasion. See, by way of example, my weblog posting on "real scientists." I am especially pleased with Card's references to the scientist and (essentially) the religious zealot, as I have used them to illustrate my points many times, especially when discussing what I term the zombie. Card is writing of zombies when he mentions those who are unaware of their own bias.

If you feel in the dark, please see my jcyclopedia definitions of “expert,” “scientist,” “religious zealot,” and “zombie.”

shippey, me likey.

2004-06-13T06:08:00.000-07:00

as i was reading shippey's book, a few quotes snatched, masticated, and regurgitated me. here are but two. i wouldn't even say these are the most powerful sentences in the book, but they are most applicable to my own life experience. i would rather not forget them.

on the literati: “The assumption seems to be that those of the 'right way of thinking' will know without being told, and those of the other party do not deserve debate: classic tactics of attempted marginalization.”

on making decisions: “‘A sharp shield-warrior must be able to decide, from words as well as from deeds’ [ ...for ] any fool can decide from deeds—it is deciding before anything has happened which is the test of intelligence.”

the u.n. reeks like tuesday

2004-05-28T14:33:00.000-07:00

Could someone please present me with the shining successes—I don’t care if they are military, diplomatic, political—that demonstrate why we should, as a planet, for one second, consider any advice the UN has to offer? Anyone? Pretty please? No? Okay, thank you.

ruminations on the nature of evil (in progress)

2004-05-05T16:23:00.000-07:00

i spent a large chunk of this evening contemplating the nature of evil. i was reading about two conflicting theories on the origins of evil, which of course, led to analysis of my own life. one theory is that evil is essentially nothingness, that it is simply an “absence of good” and born entirely within the individual. the opposing view is that evil is an outside force against which we must actively struggle.

the implicit conflict in these two theories serves as the foundation for a severe and important philosophical/spiritual/religious debate. the question is a big one, and worthy of much consideration: do we as fallible persons yield to our own desires (“temptations”) and commit evil acts, or are we driven or led to do so by some evil intelligence or force (christians would call this force “satan”)?

why is such a discussion important? well, for one, the dogmatic amongst us would accuse one of heresy were she to adopt an “inappropriate” view of evil. if i say that evil is born completely with me, thus denying the existence of a “satan” figure, then i am denying the veracity of biblical text. if i personify evil, on the other hand, it is easy to begin seeing oneself as “collateral damage” in some spiritual war—a war in which i am completely enmeshed and participatory, even if i know nothing about the strategies and motives involved. it's a simple leap to abdicate some (or perhaps all) of my responsibility for evil acts i commit.

so, is the bible a lie or am i an unwitting (innocent?) pawn?

Unequal Protection

2004-04-09T03:17:00.000-07:00

How often must we hear the argument that special interests are entitled to resources? Don't get me wrong—I believe we are all entitled to certain resources. The resource of time, for example. Only I own my time; anything else is slavery, or at the very least indentured servitude. Clearly, we all have access to what I have coined effort resources, which might also be called “enterprise” or “will.” Effort is closely linked to time, in that the will to “do something” is useless without time available to actually “do it.” While untrue today, we all should have access to certain natural resources, as well (bringing about this change will be difficult, but is absolutely needed). Special interests, however, are not referring to these resources. Rather, they maintain an entitlement to capital resources, typically by way of what is commonly called funding.

The arguments typically hinge on a misinterpretation of the phrase “equal protection under the law.” Such groups imply that “equal protection” demands The People provide each person (well, each consituent member of the special interest group class) with the resources she feels she needs or deserves—thus the playing field is “made level” in all aspects of life in order to achieve equity. So the line of “reasoning” goes, at least. This justification has been used in the past to force all manner of social engineering programs. Often, phrases like “equitable redistribution” are used to promote such initiatives. This actually means “redistribution of capital resources”—typically financial resources, but sometimes also infrastructural or intellectual.

As should be obvious, such a reading of equal protection is inaccurate. Equal protection under the law quite simply means that all citizens (a) have equal access to the resources made available by the government, and (b) will be treated equitably by said government. For example, a citizen accused of a crime is entitled to a fair trial by a jury of his peers. Suppose two police officers encounter an Hispanic guy and a white guy suspected of the same crime. Neither man offer any resistance to the officers. One officer arrests the white guy. The other shoots the Hispanic guy. Obviously, equal protection has not been achieved. Or imagine two high school seniors, a heterosexual student and an openly homosexual student. Both have identical, excellent acadmic records and identical financial need. In such an instance, they are both entitled equal access to federal financial aid for education programs.

What never occurs to the lobbyists for special interest groups is that all humans already maintain inherent rights and undeniable access to some resources—namely, time and effort resources. They seem to think that the only valuable resources are capital resources. Kind of says something about their level of greed, in my opinion. Additionally, it doesn't seem to phase them that the term “equitable redistribution” really means “overt and unpunished stealing,” and actually creates inequity or “unequal treatment under the law”; when was the last time you heard of the government taking money from poor people and giving it to the wealthy?

definitions from the jcyclopedia

2004-04-09T01:51:00.000-07:00

(memorize these and all other entries in the jcyclopedia)

resources:

Resources are “things” with which a person can “do something.” There are lots of definitions and lists of resources, mostly offered by economics professors and such. While I appreciate the attempts of such “experts” to enlighten me, I will—as always—provide my own interpretation.

As of this writing, I have identified exactly five types of resources; some of these contain specific resources and subcategories of resources which will overlap, of course. The five resource types fall into two main categories: limited resources and unlimited resources. While some limited resources are renewable, they are classified as limited because there is a discrete (if unknown) maximum availability of such resources at any given moment. There is no cap on the availability of unlimited resources; of course, these are also the most intangible.

The limited resources are: capital (financial, infrastructural, and intellectual), natural, human, and time.

The unlimited resources are: effort.

The argument could be made that human resources can be classified under both natural resources and capital resources. However, this very triangulation (i.e., humans are naturally occurring, but also serve as the creators of both the abstract and physical manifestations of capital resources) demands this distinction as a separate category. Additionally, it can be (perhaps tenuously) argued that effort resources would also not exist absent humans.

funding:

Financial capital directly provided to individuals or used to subsidize some other form of capital directly provided to individuals. “Funding” is a redistribution of resources, usually capital resources.

in response to “real scientists”...

2004-03-18T13:41:00.000-08:00

i am suggesting we be careful about placing too much faith in the opinions of any person or group of persons. we can't blindly trust politicians, because they cling to their power and lie to protect it. we can't blindly trust religious zealots, because they claim authority based on faith alone, often in the face of other evidence. similarly, we can't blindly trust the scientific establishment, as they make assertions based on a closed system of inquiry which intentionally ignores the political, the spiritual, and sometimes even common sense.

galileo was "discredited" by the authoritarian power structure of his day when he suggested the radical idea that the earth orbits the sun. the lesson: don't put all your eggs in the "expert" basket. believe nothing without skepticism, even those things labeled "proven facts" by those "real scientists." in fact, the more insistent someone is that "x is true," one is more than not well advised to approach the idea with even greater suspicion.

galileo was clearly right about the earth and sun, though the establishment violently disagreed. he paid the price, regardless of his accuracy. similarly, we can't discount claims made by modern “wackos” on their face, just because tradition and a group of scientists say we should. all things must be examined of their own merit, without subjecting them to frameworks or systems of inquiry that may not be applicable. question, question, question.

We are all whack (and by whack, I mean whack)

2004-02-02T06:36:00.000-08:00

This morning, I turned on the news just in (Justin? *groan*) time to see Janet Jackson's boob.

Even Kitty Couric and Mutt Lauer seemed troubled by the sight of her bare breast, and their interview questions—fired off to some meaningless pundit—reflected this (the fact that these two partisans call themselves "unbiased journalists" makes me wish to vomit, but more on that some other day). I flipped on the radio (Hello, UltraConservatives!) to an even more outraged tone, and wondered how on Earth this could be such a big story. It's a breast, folks; there is an average of one for every person on the planet (if you are having trouble with the math on that one, contact me for assistance). They are everywhere we turn, and we have all seen them. (Note: If you haven't yet seen a breast, get thee to a house with Cinemax. Forthwith.)

"But the children! My children will not be exposed to such... filth!"

If your child hasn't been exposed to a breast by now—and this I say unto you without regard for her age: First, I imagine she is less healthy than she ought to be, as the best nutrients an infant can receive come from—imagine—breasts! Secondly, a child needs to understand life. Breasts are a part of life, an important part. (Note: For some of us, an even more important part than for others.) It is ridiculous to shield children from things that are important; how the hell do kids learn to deal with breasts unless they have experience with them?

I have a real problem with adults using children to get what the adults want. None of the kids that saw Janet's boob made a big stink about it. Children are naturally unphased by such things, until they see their parents freak about them. In doing so, parents subconsciously teach their kids it is "wrong" to see a boob unless (a) it is yours or (b) you are married to it—and maybe not even then. (Note: It may even be a sin to have sex at all, so it must definitely be a sin to have sex in the daytime/with the lights on.) Certainly, kids are in no way emotionally scarred or otherwise traumatized just for having seen a breast. Or even a hundred breasts. But grownups in America are uncomfortable with public-boobies, so we go insane and justify this insanity as "protecting our children." Meanwhile, it's seeing their parents freak out that scars kids, thereby ensuring another generation of adults who are afraid to look anything even mildly erotic in the eye.

Our cultural perspective on sexuality is one of the most conservative in the Western world, to the point that any reference to sex or sexuality—particularly when a child might gain access—is taboo. I guarantee there are now people in this country organizing boycotts of CBS, the NFL, MTV, Justin Timberlake, and Janet herself (I hope her boob has a good attorney and publicist). It just demonstrates the sad state of affairs in which we find ourselves. Everywhere you turn, people treat one another like shit. We turn a blind eye, but the instant there is a boob on TV, you bet your ass we are all over it.

You know, I just decided it's actually the children with whom I should be disgusted, allowing themselves to be used this way. I mean, historically, women stood up for themselves. Blacks and other minorities have demanded rights, representation, and fair treatment. It's about time these kids do the same. Some six–year–olds should organize a march on Washington. Lazy brats.

Never Again

2001-09-14T15:02:00.000-07:00

J. — September 14, 2001

Well, it seems the question of the week has reared its ugly head: "What's to stop this from happening again?" It's an important question, to be sure, and one that seems to be on the lips of most Americans, from the plastic and unceasing Talking Heads of CNN and Fox News, to my own friends and colleagues. Everywhere I look and listen, it seems as if people fear that this specific terrorist act -- hijacking an airliner and instantly transforming it into a weapon of mass destruction -- will become a favorite tactic of those who seek to undermine America's confidence and global leadership position.

Three major airports in and around New York City were rapidly closed on Thursday, not long after each had reopened for business. While the facts still seem unclear, it may be that terrorists attempted to continue the attack they launched Tuesday morning. Several men were detained. Rumors of fake IDs, pilot licenses, and tickets stamped September 11, 2001, seem to have thrown the authorities into a panic. Perhaps that panic is justified.

I maintain, however, that this strategy will never again be a feasible option for terrorists wishing to further assault America's landmarks and her citizenry. And I don't believe that this option has been eliminated because of the new restrictions that were placed on airlines and passengers by the FAA. These new restrictions seem logical on their face -- who in the world knew that you could keep a knife in your carry-on to begin with? -- but will simply serve as barriers to the freedoms we Americans once held dear. Another opportunity to justify revocation of our liberties in the name of safety.

We can never eliminate risk, as Evil inevitably finds its way around new obstacles. The new FAA guidelines won't have much effect when it comes to terrorists, who will quite happily bribe airline maintenance workers to conceal weapons on a plane before boarding begins, or bash flight crew members who resist a hijacking with a laptop computer or other heavy object. No, the only way that the FAA could definitively stop this tactic from being used in the future would be to ground all flights, domestic and foreign. Forever.

So, you might ask, how can I make the claim that this method of attack won't be used again? My answer is brief, yet sound: United Flight 93.

When the hijackers commandeered Flight 93 somewhere in the skies near Cleveland, the country was quickly coming to the realization that something was dreadfully wrong. What had been initially perceived as a tragic accident -- a plane crashing into the World Trade Center -- was seen in a new light as other airliners found their targets. The passengers on Flight 93, having spoken with loved ones on the ground, deduced their fate. It seems they did something about it.

At approximately 10:00 A.M. this past Tuesday, I heard the first reports of the crash in rural Pennsylvania. My immediate thought: the pilot, his own plane under assault and having heard about what had transpired in New York and Washington, intentionally grounded his plane in an unpopulated area. As indications as to what truly occurred on that plane began to emerge, my pride for our country and her citizens deepened.

That is why this tactic, a plan that was at the same time brilliant and horrific, is now useless. There are 260 million Americans just like the passengers on Flight 93, and we will never let this happen again. The images of Tuesday, September 11, 2001 -- forever etched in our memories -- will be our guiding force. The passengers aboard Flight 93 demonstrated great courage when they attempted to wrench control of that airliner back from the men who intended to use her as a weapon of war. But don't call those passengers heroes. Rather, call them Americans, and know that we Americans would do it again. We will defend our country from Evil, even sacrifice our lives to save our brothers and sisters.

So bring it on terrorists, but don't expect this tactic to go as planned ever again. Be prepared for an ass-kicking.

The Two Witnesses?

2001-09-11T15:35:00.000-07:00

Quoted text from The Book of Revelation, Chapter 11, Verses 2–10.
Commentary by J. — September 11, 2001, and later revised.

Below is a quotation that seems (to me) to mesh amazingly well with the attacks of September 11, 2001. As you read it, please remember, the book of Revelation is couched in vivid imagery and symbolism, and that literal interpretation of the visions presented within would probably be erroneous. Additionally, the numbers presented in the book are code, not literal. Take a moment to read.

[I was told,] "They will trample on the holy city for 42 months. And I will give power to my two witnesses, and they will prophesy for 1,260 days, clothed in sackcloth." These are the two olive trees and the two lampstands that stand before the Lord of the earth. If anyone tries to harm them, fire comes from their mouths and devours their enemies. This is how anyone who wants to harm them must die. These men have the power to shut up the sky so that it will not rain during the time they are prophesying; and they have the power to turn the waters into blood and to strike the earth with every kind of plague as often as they want.

Now when they have finished their testimony, the beast that comes up from the Abyss will attack them, and overpower and kill them. Their bodies will lie in the streets of the great city [...], where also their Lord was crucified. For three and a half days men from every people, tribe, language and nation will gaze on their bodies and refuse them burial. The inhabitants of the earth will gloat over them and will celebrate by sending each other gifts, because these two prophets had tormented those who live on the earth.

The Book of Revelation, Chapter 11, Verses 2–10
The Holy Bible, New International Version

Take a moment to reflect on this passage as symbolism.

The Two Witnesses are personified, so it seems logical to think of them as humans, rather than buildings. However, what if we were to consider that the Two Witnesses are not men, but are instead monuments, testaments that bear "witness" to the immense power held by the leaders and citizens of a specific society or culture? What better witness to the immense might of the United States than the Twin Towers of the WTC, an architectural wonder and central symbol of our economic dominance?

Typically, any biblical reference to the "Lord" is interpreted as a reference to God or Christ. Here, however, the passage specifically indicates "the Lord of the earth" -- is this a significant difference? Must the Lord of the earth be a single person, or even a small group of persons? Could it possibly be a nation? Consider that the United States is the world's only remaining Super Power. How much global influence and control does our country have? One only need examine the ways our culture, economy, and military are scattered across the four winds to arrive at a basic answer.

The passage refers to the absolute power of the men, seemingly referring to the Two Witnesses. But might not this passage refer to the powerful men who lead "the Lord of the earth"? Our government certainly has the power to devour its enemies and "turn the waters into blood and to strike the earth with every kind of plague as often as they want."

So, if we view the United States as an almost all-powerful ruler of the planet, to what geographical location might "two lampstands that stand before the Lord of the earth" refer? How often has the New York harbor been identified to as the most prominent "gateway" to our nation? Why does Lady Liberty stand there? Nearly every new American -- for generations -- saw that harbor as the entrance to the United States and a better life. So, might we not reasonably see New York City as a "front door"?

The second segment of the quotation needs no real explanation. Even today, the "bodies" of the Two Witnesses still "lie in the streets of the great city." Thanks to the miracle of instant communication, people of every tribe, language, and nation have gazed upon them. Think back over the time since September 11; how many people have we seen celebrate the WTC attacks? Many.

One clarification: the beast from the Abyss clearly does not refer to the Islamic religion, although some will attempt to spin it that way. Those who genuinely practice Islam worship the same God as those who genuinely practice Christianity or Judaism. He just has a different name. No, the beast referred to here is simply Evil, manifested in the hearts of men. Remember, Evil acts committed in the name of God are not endorsed by God. But what better way to create even more Evil than by turning one religion against another? We must strive to remember that God never endorses Evil, including the murder of innocents.

How Crazy Are These People?

2001-09-11T15:30:00.000-07:00

Quoted text from The Boomer Bible, by R. F. Laird.
Commentary by J. — September 11, 2001, with later revisions.

I hope that by now you know that there is not a racist bone in my body, and that I harbor no ill will toward any specific culture or individuals. That said, I hope you will not take offense at the next quote, which comes from a satirical book which examines life and religion in the United States. The Boomer Bible is simply excellent, and should be required reading for every American.

I sat in disbelief when I heard the news of the "bombings" of the World Trade Center's Twin Towers. It's inexplicable, but as I watched the films of the plane hitting that tower and of the two witnesses as they fell dead, I actually laughed. I'm almost ashamed to admit that, but it's the truth. Disgust and nervousness and disbelief just made me laugh and shake my head. And then I thought of this passage:

CHAPTER 106

1 But then came the day that will live in infamy,
2 Forever,
3 Never to be forgotten by the Yanks,
4 Ever,
5 As long as there is still a single Yank alive to remember the exact moment when Japan and Germany lost the war,
6 Which happened at seven o'clock A.M., Pacific time,
7 On December 7th,
8 1940-something,
9 When about a million Nip planes and ships came out of nowhere,
10 And attacked Pearl Harbor,
11 Without warning,
12 Completely by surprise,
13 And killed about two thousand Yanks,
14 For no reason.

CHAPTER 107

1 The Yanks were mad about Pearl Harbor, of course,
2 But maybe not quite as mad as they were surprised,
3 And offended,
4 Because how did the Nips ever get the idea that a sneak attack on the Yanks was a good idea?
5 After all, it hasn't ever been a good idea to make the Yanks mad,
6 Like with the Alamo,
7 And the Maine,
8 And the Lusitania,
9 Which should have tipped off the Nips that if they did something to the Yanks,
10 Something unspeakable like Pearl Harbor, for example,
11 The Yanks would remember it,
12 Forever,
13 And find a way to get even,
14 No matter how much it cost,
15 And now that you mention it,
16 Remember the Lusitania?
17 Which explains why the Yanks declared war on Japan and Germany within a few hours of the attack on Pearl Harbor,
18 Because they were all going to get it now,
19 As soon as the Yanks remembered where they'd put their army and their weapons and other stuff like that.

The Book of Damn Yankees, Chapters 106 and 107
The Boomer Bible by R. F. Laird

Upon Consideration of the American Response

2001-09-11T15:25:00.000-07:00

Quoted text from The Boomer Bible, by R. F. Laird.
Commentary by J. — September 11, 2001, with later revisions.

What follows is another passage from The Boomer Bible, an excellent satirical commentary on the citizens of the United States. Perhaps a bit premature when considering the situation, but the passage does raise some interesting questions. What response should we expect from the American people? From the government? What response is most appropriate in this situation?

Again, this is satire and not representative of my own personal views. It's just grist for the mill.

CHAPTER 119

1 When the Yank A-Bomb vaporized Hiroshima in a few seconds or so,
2 The Yank president realized that the Nips would need some time to figure out what had happened exactly,
3 Because they were the first nation that had ever lost a complete city in just a few seconds,
4 And so Truman gave them almost forty-eight hours to think it over,
5 Well, not quite forty-eight hours,
6 Because forty-eight hours later another A-Bomb vaporized Nagasaki,
7 Which caused the Nips to realize that they might be seeing the beginnings of a pattern,
8 In which each Yank demand for Unconditional Surrender is followed,
9 Within forty-eight hours,
10 By the disappearance of another Nip city,
11 Which is the kind of pattern that adds up after a while,
12 No matter how much you like suicide,
13 And finally convinced the Nips to throw in the towel,
14 The American Way,
15 Which is called, Unconditional Surrender.

The Book of Damn Yankees, Chapter 119
The Boomer Bible by R. F. Laird

v is for veracity

Ya' think?

What Mutations Man Must Face

Ditto

An Interesting Tidbit

Oy vey.

So.

Of interest: Redevelopment done right

2007 clichés “thrown under the bus”

Bhutto

Yeah, two sides of the same coin. *eyeroll*

Huh.

“Economics Proves It, You Freak!”

Shared sacrifice and moral equality

The Ramifications of the Strike

The Dishonest Debate

realizations iii

Question of the Year

ohgoodlordhavemercy

Sportscenter and POTUS

Apologies...

Hi?

The Immigration Issue

Mic Czech

Good for him

This Evening

Synchronicity abounds

Up With Which I Am Fed

Wham, Bam, Thank You, Sir.

And if that hasn't convinced you...

Pretentious Bastard

The Family-Friendly Collectivism of China

Peaceful Protest?

On Old Norse courage, Ragnarök, and Tolkien

minority mysticism

Objectivism and postmodernism

A response to Ayn Rand's Anthem and quotes on Objectivism

QWR 01/2007

another quote worth remembering

reflection on midterm elections

Nomenclature

random thought of the week

The Book of the VIP Kurt

Vengence, American style

j's random thought of the week

an interesting tidbit

political perspectives

you ain't hard, but she was

Surprised?

So I'm Crass in the Face of Tragedy

The Feds v. Katrina

The Rules of Grammar and Hurricanes

"Public" Spaces

Why Iraq?

Once a Boomer, Always a Boomer

Even More SUWWIAF

"Artemis Fowl": Been There, Done That.

Others

SUWWIAF

All Reporters Suck

Okay, because you asked... (Apologies in advance for the rant)

explanation, please?

Also from the Lost and Found

Discovered: SUWWIAF, The Original

Fallacies and “Freedom of Speech”

men can't self-actualize.

Newsflash for the “New Media”

are you kidding me?

Ding, dong! The cricket's dead!

yeah, i went there.

The lesser of two evils?

"appropriating" culture

Whoa.

Capitalism Memo

I don't care how this sounds...

shippey, me likey.

the u.n. reeks like tuesday

ruminations on the nature of evil (in progress)

Unequal Protection

definitions from the jcyclopedia

Yeah, two sides of the same coin. eyeroll