They weren't as fun, funny, entertaining, or much of anything else as you remember. All those old TV shows that you used to watch weren't any good. The music you used to listen to: lousy. The styles: idiotic, and not in a good, ironic way (but if you're into irony, you need help, possibly more help than a blog can hope to provide).
I lived through them, and the 80s aren't worth rehashing over again. Let them die. That is all.
80 m.p.h.
According to Ford, that's how fast teenagers should be allowed to drive. 80 freaking miles per hour.
Yes, Ford has introduced parental controls, the main thrust of which are that the car can't go faster than 80. Because there are a lot of times when you'd need to do 79, as a teenager. For instance, in the 79 m.p.h. zone in some residential areas. Oh, and in order to very slowly and safely pass a car which is only doing 75, which is the speed reserved for old people and drive-throughs.
Now there are tones which can be set to sound when the car goes over 45, 55, or 65, but 80 is the top limit, because Ford knows that young people need to be able to travel faster than the posted speed limit anywhere... for some reason. Oh, I know, if that teenager happens to be chased by a hitchhiker with a hook for a hand. Or if that teen went to Germany and was driving on the Autobahn.
Tell you what, you come up with a list of things which would give good cause for a teenager to drive 80 and mail them to Ford, so they can use them in advertisements.
I thought about it, and the only reason I can see for this policy is that 80 is too slow for drag racing. But kids who street race don't exactly buy cars with parental limits. So this will prevent bad drivers from being so monumentally unsafe that they are likely to kill themselves immediately. It won't prevent them from being unsafe, just keep them from being that unsafe.
Given the fact that the posted limit is rarely above 70, why the extra ten miles per hour? Also, even if the limit was 85, I wouldn't want a teenage driver going that fast.
It's knee-jerk. It's "safety" for looks. It's a crock. You want to get all Big Brother on teenagers' asses, you should work out some way for the car to sense what the speed limit is in that particular area, and cap the speed at that. Or you should move the driving age up (gasp, I know, what a shocker that is). Or you should mandate longer periods of driving with an adult in the car, or harder tests, or mandatory drivers' ed. Capping the speed at 80 and sounding alarms... hocus pocus.
Here's the relevant data. It's about the mortgage/economy recession/meltdown/whatever-it-is.
Here's the relevant quote:
You can't blame the borrowers for obtaining mortgages they couldn't afford to handle. They were innocent lambs set up for a trip to the slaughter house by conscienceless mortgage lenders who allowed their greed to distort their judgment and make the riskiest of loans to the riskiest of borrowers.
To coin a phrase: "Yes we can." Perhaps not "blame," but certainly not condone.
The news is full of sob stories to the effect that poor little old people took out mortgages they could have afforded, only something bad happened and now they can't. How exactly is that the bank's fault?
See, the people who want you to believe that middle America doesn't share some blame in all this, those people want to have it both ways. They want you to believe that the big bad banks are responsible for this crisis. That's partially true. They want you to believe that it's the bank's responsibility to check and see whether or not someone is a liability in the loan department. It's not a responsibility, but it makes sense for the banks, because frankly, it's good business to loan money to people who are going to give it back.
But the "banks are bad" crowd also want you to believe that all the people losing their houses would have been able to keep them, were it not for unforeseen circumstances. So then how is that the bank's fault?
"[D]ecent, hard-working black lad[ies]" who buy houses which were within their means, but only if nothing went wrong, are either risky borrowers, or they aren't. The "banks are bad" crowd want you to believe that they're risky, until they aren't. See, they were risks, so the bank shouldn't have loaned them money. But they shouldn't be held responsible for trying to get a risky loan, because they weren't risky, until something went wrong, "which of course it did."
If things going wrong means you move from a stable, assured asset to a horrible, gaping liability, you're not terribly stable. I'm not saying that, worst-case scenario, everyone should still be able to afford everything they can now. I'm just saying that, come on, people who are losing their homes are not all losing them because little Jennifer fell down a well. They're losing them for lamentable reasons, at least the examples you hear, but those reasons are things which could happen to anyone, "which of course it did."
So either they were risky loans, or they weren't. If they were risky, it was poor business sense that led the banks to give out those loans (or maybe not, since now the banks will be bailed out). But you have to ask, were these people too stupid to understand the concept of living within your means? It's patronizing to assume that everyone who got a bad mortgage was too dumb. So we must assume that most of them, "decent, hard-working black lad[ies]" and all, were greedy too. They wanted something they couldn't afford, or that they could barely afford.
I could purchase a lot of things. I could spend all my money on beer and pornography. I could afford to do that. Then, when I starved to death, I could claim that I had been a victim of the horrible beer and porn companies, who should have known better than to sell me things I couldn't really afford, because I didn't leave any money for food (well, I couldn't claim that, because I'd be dead, but my survivors could sue).
I don't buy things I can't afford. Having enough money to do something doesn't mean you can afford it. Living on a razor's edge, where as long as nothing bad happens, you'll be okay, is no way to live. These people were not all too stupid to realize that. They were greedy.
That being said, the current crisis is not just about people losing their homes. It's about debt-peddling, which maybe I'll get to in another installment. Suffice to say, however, that while some blame must be parceled out to people who were greedy home-buyers, more of it should probably go to banks which traded in risky debt. Once again, it's everyone's fault.
Here is a phrase I don't ever want to hear again, especially not after November 4th. I'm not really quoting from anywhere in particular, just in general.
I was going to vote for Hillary Clinton if she had been the nominee, but when McCain picked Palin, I decided to vote for her instead."
Okay then. Where to start? For one, you have my permission to regard anyone who says this seriously as an utter moron. Why? Let's examine.
You think I'm being harsh. I would be just as harsh to someone who said they were voting for Barrack Obama solely based on his blackness. That's a dumb reason.
Now what I mean by "voting for... solely based on..." is that, all things being completely unequal, you make your decision based only on that quality. If the two candidates are polar oposites, you would support a candidate with whom you had no points of agreement based solely on that quality. Obviously, that's an ideal case. The differences between Barrack Obama and John McCain are not so cut and dried that I can say that they are diametrically opposite points. But frankly, Sarah Palin and Hillary Clinton are pretty far from each other, polarity-wise.
So you're caught in a trap. If you agreed with one of the women enough to vote for them based on policy, then why have you endorsed the other, whose policies would be opposed to your views? Or maybe you only support either of them because of their gender, in which case, you're a huge moron. Or maybe you agree with some of one and some of the other, in which case... I don't know how you live in today's political climate. You shouldn't be endorsing a candidate based on your tepid approval of some of his or her policies.
So people, you're not voting for the Vice President. You're voting for the President. And if you're so gung-ho to get a woman into the highest office in the land, remember: Veep is basically a glorified First Lady. How sexist is it that John McCain needs a pretty woman on his arm to win your vote?
It's on obligation of all candidates for office, whether they be running for president or class clown, to say that they are, "ready to serve," whenever the opportunity presents itself. I mean that "whenever the opportunity presents itself" mostly because they'll say it anywhere, any time. But in some cases, as in the Vice President, "the opportunity presenting itself" not only refers to an apropos time to say one is ready to serve, but also the fact that a Vice President isn't called on to serve, really, unless an opportunity presents itself.
Who, as the saying, goes, is kidding whom? I don't think I'd vote for a candidate who said, in answer to an interviewer's question, "Well Bob, I'm not ready to be President. If the President died and I was next in line, I'd freak the hell out and run around screaming. I shouldn't be one heartbeat away from the Presidency." But let's face it, a lot of Vice Presidential candidates would probably have done just that, if called upon to do anything other than go to funerals and break infrequent ties in the Senate.
I guess I'm asking whether or not we want a Vice President who's so gung-ho about being prepared. That's like saying, "I'm prepared for the worst to happen," with a big smile on your face. Sure, we want a Vice President who wouldn't make a lousy President, but historically, that's not what Vice Presidents are. They aren't backup, really. They have a very hard time being elected President in their own rights, even after they become President when the worst does happen.
Preparedness is a virtue. Being prepared for the worst doesn't make you expect the worst, but it makes you better off if or when the worst happens. But maybe readiness to serve, or lead, or whatever they're ready for, isn't as important as how they would lead, or serve, or whatever. Would you vote for someone whose sole qualification was preparedness? I wouldn't. That's reactive. I want active leaders.
Not that I'm saying that being ready to serve is a bad thing. It's just not the only thing. And that goes for Presidents, Vice Presidents, and class clowns.
We're getting off to a rocky start with the title, and I promise you, it will only get rockier.
Bias has become a dirty word recently. Well, maybe not recently. If I were to say that someone was showing their preference for a particular opinion, that's not a bad thing. We all have preferences and opinions. But change "preference for" to "bias toward" and you've got a fire-fight on your hands.
Why is this such a problem? Why can't we have biases? What is it about the nature of the world today that makes "bias" a bad word?
Now having hidden biases, that's problematic. If a judge has a bias against women that he doesn't share, that will affect his judgments, and also be unfair to lawyers who operate under the assumption that this judge is unbiased in that regard. It's possible that, even if the judge is open about his bias against women, he will still not be a fair judge. But at least if he admits it, then people can make informed choices regarding his aptitude as a judge based on all the evidence, not just some of it.
But to believe that we as humans can operate entirely without bias is foolish. The best thing we can do (and I've probably mentioned this previously) is to make full disclosure. Own up to your biases, your opinions, your preferences. They affect your actions, and if those actions are intended to be "fair" then at least let people know with what deck of cards you're playing. It doesn't necessarily excuse bias, or even mitigate it, but it's really the only thing to do.
Mostly, though, I'm sick and tired of people acting "shocked, shocked" that there is bias anywhere. Particularly, I'm tired of people accusing groups and organizations of bias which is obviously present. For instance, NATO is biased against Russia. It's not hard to figure out. The NAACP is biased toward black people. Accusing them of racial bias is like calling the sky blue. Most national entities are biased in favor of themselves versus the world. And why not? People tend (this is not always true, but generally) to be biased in favor of their own interests, self-preservation, what have you. Why are we alarmed by this?
So no, I don't expect anyone to be bias-free. Sometimes I just wish people were a little more open about it. And sometimes I wish people would stand up and respond to accusations of bias, "Yes, I am. What of it?"
Call it a preference.
Well, I didn't expect to get here, I'll be honest. And I haven't done it in the way I wanted. I should have been writing this last year at around this time, not now. But I gave up on that. Now, I just need an outlet.
We all need them, which is, I suppose, why blogging is healthy. As long as you don't expect anyone to read your blog, it's just a form of expression which helps get things out in the open. But really, you're being more public than if you just wrote a diary for yourself. Which is why I still have problems expressing certain more controversial opinions here. You can guess what they are, but I won't tell.
I'm writing this post because it's expected, by me, I think. I don't have much of anything useful to say about 200. I may have, at some point, promised that by this point I would be writing about cheese in our nation's banks. If you're looking for that, you should consult my other blog, which I haven't updated in forever but am thinking of starting up again because I need more zaniness in my life. Or you could consult one of the many other humorously insane sites on the Web. I'm not going to write about cheese in our nation's banks here. Sorry.
"[The country] has invaded a sovereign... state and threatens a democratic government elected by its people. Such an action is unacceptable in the 21st Century. The... government must reverse the course it appears to be on and accept this peace agreement as a first step toward solving this conflict.
Quiz time! Who is speaking, and what is he or she talking about? I'm sure you can guess that it's George Bush talking about Russia and the current situation in Georgia. Because who else would have the unmitigated gall, or possibly the total stupidity, necessary to make those statements?
There's really not much to say about it. We have no moral high ground. Russia should get out of the places its in, and so should the United States.
And did anyone else find the Russian refrain a little fishy:
"[We] must protect the life and dignity of [our] citizens wherever they are. We will not allow their deaths to go unpunished. Those responsible will receive a deserved punishment."
Sounded almost like the annexation of the Sudetenland by someone. Not that I'm drawing a comparison; after all, he (you know about whom I'm talking) wasn't the first leader to use that excuse to invade, and I'm sure he won't be the last. It's a classic gambit: some of our people (ethnically, religiously, or even nationally) live in another country; that other country is treating them badly; we must invade to protect them; QED.
This whole thing is just a mass of crap. No one is right. It's a war.
I'm cribbing the title of this post from Slacktivist, who may have been cribbing it from someone else. It means Not As Bad As, and refers to... well, I'll let you figure it out.
A headline caught my attention. Just the headline, now. "Cuba 'jailing fewer dissidents'"
Here is a list of things which one could say that are slightly less hopeful than that, but only slightly.
I believe you get the point. The point is that Not As Bad As isn't good. So the fact that Cuba is jailing fewer dissidents than they used to (15 fewer, down to 219) doesn't make them a shining beacon of civil rights. Not that I'm saying that anywhere is a shining beacon of civil rights, but Cuba certainly doesn't get to win any medals for cutting their jailing of dissidents right down to the bone. My God man, 15 fewer! Where can we go from there? 20? 25? Where will it end!
Interestingly, the article goes on to point out that one of the reasons for this slicing of jailed dissidents to practically almost nearly zero is the fact that the Cuban police have instituted a catch-and-release dissident program. So they can still lock you up at any time, but there's less chance you'll rot in prison forever.
Here is a list of things which are slightly less hopeful than the fact that dissidents are less likely to wind up in jail in perpetuity, but only slightly.
And so on.
So the UN has decided to become greener. I'm all for it.
The article is here. The details, so you don't have to read it, follow:
Under the Cool UN initiative, the air conditioning will be turned down and temperatures will rise several degrees.
The plan is expected to save $100,000 during the month, as well as cutting carbon emissions.
All well and good, my good UN. All well and good. I'm glad I'm not working there, because:
For all of August the UN building's thermostats will rise from their usual chilly 72 degrees Fahrenheit (22 degrees Centigrade) up to 77 degrees (25 degrees Centigrade).
However, to discourage diplomatic tempers from growing too overheated, the building's conference rooms will only be hitting highs of 75 degrees (24 degrees Centigrade).
Chilly at 72°? 75° is too high for me. But then I'm cold-blooded (well, actually, that phrase doesn't mean what I'm taking it to mean, since if I were actually cold-blooded I'd want it to be as hot as possible, I guess).
My only question is one which I've asked before, and will probably ask again. Will they turn the heat down for the month of January?
Okay, I have a few questions, actually. I hope this is a trial run, because if it's just a symbol, and after August they'll be turning the AC back to 45°, then my dear UN, that's crap. Also, it's confusing to talk about turning air conditioners down, since air conditioners operate on temperature by lowering it. But I get what they're saying over at the BBC.
Why is it seen as a sign of weakness to be uncomfortable in the heat, but turn up the heat to 80° and you're just a perfectly ordinary person. Why, I ask you? With the obesity epidemic, you'd think we'd all be running around in the winter in short sleeves, what with the blubber we're all carrying. It is just as "green" to turn down the heat in the winter, but instead we get people giving away free oil to the poor. Does anyone give free air conditioning to the poor? No, because that would be frivolous. That's because humanity has had heating systems for longer than they've had cooling systems, I guess.
So how about it, Ban Ki Moon? Will you be turning down your heat as well? Because you'd better believe that, in today's oil market, heating is just as bad for things as cooling. Maybe more so. Will you be letting the temperature dip to... well, let's call 72° the median, shall we, so will you be setting the thermostat to a very reasonable 65°? Me, I think 70 in the winter is too hot, so maybe we could sneak the heat down a bit more, say to 63°.
If they do, they'll save lots of money, oil, carbon emissions, that kind of thing. If they don't, they are yet more of the people who are willing to turn up the heat, but not the other way around. In which case, screw them and their silly little UN. Here in America, we don't need them. We'll build our own UN, with blackjack and hookers. In fact, forget the UN and the blackjack. Eh, screw the whole thing.
It's a, I say, it's a joke, son. Nice boy, but dumb as a box of rocks.
This is a happy, silly view instead of the dark, depressing ones everyone has come to expect from me. I won't be telling you anything other than something sort of vaguely useful.
Did you know you can add two numbers on your hands? Yes, of course you did. Did you know they can be as big as 31? Well, fine then, for the people who didn't know that, let me explain.
You see, if you treat each of your fingers as a binary digit, each hand can represent 25 different numbers, in other words, 32. Now since 0 is the first number, that means you can represent any number from 0 to 31.
Okay, still lost a few of you, I imagine. Try this. Our most commonly-used system of numbering is decimal, because there are 10 possible numbers in each place. In other words, there can be anything from 0-9 in the ones' place, 0-9 in the tens', and so on. You probably learned that sometime early on in school.
Now instead, we can use binary, which means two possibilities in each place, or in other words, 0-1. Now since in decimal notation, each place is a power of ten, in binary, each place is a power of two. Yes, those of you who knew this already, I am starting really simply. Come back later and read another view about terrorists or something. So in other words, there can be 0-1 in the ones' place, 0-1 in the twos', 0-1 in the fours', and so on.
So for instance, decimal 31 in binary is 11111; that is, 1 in the ones', 1 in the twos', 1 in the fours', 1 in the eights', and 1 in the sixteens'. So 1+2+4+8+16 = 31.
Instead of ones and zeros, we can use fingers. If a finger is up, that's a 1, if it's down, that's a 0. So a fist with no fingers up at all is 0, while a hand with all five fingers (yes, for the purposes of this discussion, a thumb is a finger) up is 31. We'll call the thumb the ones' place and work toward the pinkie. Yes, this means that on the left hand the digits (and they really are digits, aren't they) move one way, and on the right they move the other. But that will come in handy later.
So for instance, 5 would be the thumb and second fingers raised. Be careful not to work much with fours, because that's something of a rude gesture in certain parts. So keep your hands under the table while you do this, and practice in private, both so you don't accidentally insult people and also because you're going to look very strange doing this.
First off, make sure you can make numbers on either hand, 0-31. Heck, if all you need to do is count, you can count a fairly high number by using both hands, 210 or 1024, coincidentally the actual number of bytes in a kilobyte or kilobytes in a megabyte or megabytes in a gigabyte(don't let anyone tell you differently) so if you should have to count bytes at some point, you can do it on your fingers if you really want to. That's a neat parlor trick, but sort of pointless.
But being able to make a number on both hands is essential to the actually interesting thing here, which is the ability to add two numbers larger than ten on your fingers. So now, make two numbers, say 5 and 5, on both hands. You should have your thumbs and middle fingers raised (I told you this was going to look odd to passers-by, but you didn't listen, did you). Bring your two hands together. Pick one hand to be the receiver. I'm right-handed, so I tend to go with my right, but it really doesn't matter much. In our example of adding fives, it doesn't matter at all, since both are the same. So we'll go right for me, but left power to all those lefties out there who now want to kill me.
Now, if there is a finger raised on the left hand (the passer, to coin a football term) and not on the right, all you have to do is pass that finger over, drop it on the left, and raise it on the right. But since that's not happening in our current example, we'll leave that. If both hands have a certain finger lowered, keep it there on both. If the passer has a lowered finger and the receiver has a raised one, leave things alone too. But if the passer and receiver both have raised fingers in a particular position, lower both of them and raise the one next in line on the passer. Work from thumb to pinkie.
So in our example, both my thumbs are up, so I lower both of them (I'm carrying the one, in case you wanted a more mathematical analogy) and raise my index finger on my left hand. Then I move to my index fingers, and only my left hand's is raised, so I pass it to my right hand. Then I move to middle fingers, and both are raised, so I carry and raise my left ring finger. Then I pass ring fingers from left to right. And I'm left with my index and ring fingers raised on my right hand. That's 0101 in binary, or 0+2+0+8, or 10, which is what we expect. I feel like I'm teaching kindergarten, or participating in Tom Lehrer's song about new math. But I'm not being childish.
Let's take another example, to illustrate the problem with my instructions thus far. Let's add 7 to 3. That's the first three fingers raised on the left, and the first two on the right. Now starting with the thumb, both are raised, so we lower both and raise the next finger on the left... which is already raised. Crap. Fortunately, we can amend our previous rule. If a rule tells you to raise a finger that is already raised, lower it and raise the next finger instead.
So first we look at the thumbs. Both raised. We lower them and raise the index finger on the left. But it's already raised too, so we lower it and raise the middle finger. Also already raised, so we lower it and raise the ring finger on the left. This one we can raise. Then we move past the index and middle fingers, because they're already lowered on the left, and when we get to the ring finger, we pass it from left to right. Again, 0101, or decimal ten.
So our rules would be:
Congratulations, you are adding like a computer. You can now add numbers up to 15 on each hand without breaking a sweat. If you use fingers and toes, you can add much larger numbers, although it probably takes a bit more dexterity.
What happens when you add 16 and 16 together. That's both pinkies. You run out of space on your hands. Computers would call that "overflow," but I prefer to call it, "a perfect opportunity to use your tongue as the final bit." So if you get to your pinkies and a rule is still telling you to raise something, don't be lewd, but just stick out your tongue. You can tell people, "Sorry, I'm adding." This excuse is not guaranteed to work in any circumstance. Or you could just remember that you've tripped the overflow in your head, and when it comes time to do a final tally just add 32 to the result. So to add 31 to 31, that is, all five fingers up on each hand, I lower both thumbs, because they're both raised, then I proceed up the line, lowering all my fingers on the left and sticking out my tongue, which leaves me with all my fingers on my right hand raised except my thumb, and 32 more (in the person of my tongue as the final bit), which is 2+4+8+16+32, or 62, a larger number than you can add with all your fingers, toes, and tongue, in decimal, and you're only using one hand.
Okay, this was all a bit of fluff. However, I can tell you that being able to add large numbers by simple rules without having to write them down is like having an abacus, which is, in essence, what your fingers can be if you use them properly. Instead of rows of 10 beads, you only need rows of 1 bead, which can be easily approximated by fingers. And that's something. Something else is understanding little tidbits of computer knowledge without knowing you've got them. And of course, calling your tongue "the overflow bit" can't be bad.
I'm responding to Michael Reagan generally, of course, but most specifically to his column, "Bush Should Strip Sanctuary Cities of Federal Funds." I'm not, as I've said in the past, in the habit of simply linking to other articles, but I'm mostly just talking about Michael Reagan.
First off, I think that Mr. Reagan needs to read up on the tenets of conservatism if he thinks that the Federal government should be giving money to cities anyway. After all, that's big government. Cities should be on their own, sink or swim, capitalism red in tooth and claw, fiscal responsibility, etc. I don't happen to agree with that platform, but Mr. Reagan certainly should. So yes, I guess according to that, the president should strip all cities of federal funds. What are cities doing getting federal funds anyway. Bad business, that. Makes cities reliant on the government.
Now that the silliness is over. I think that cities should have to abide by laws, and if those laws say that illegal immigrants who commit crimes are to be deported, and there's no legal reason for those laws to be overruled (not that I think there is or there isn't in the particular case that Mr. Reagan brings up) then by all means, deport criminals who are illegal immigrants. They'll most likely get back in because our immigration control is laughable because we're spending all our money on building walls and hunting down illegal aliens instead of spending it on checking immigrants out before we let them in and then - gasp - letting them in. But by all means, cities should have to follow laws.
For that matter, we could probably solve the problems we have with jail overpopulation if we simply deported all criminals, illegal immigrant or not. Commit a crime, go to Mexico, that's the ticket. Because pretty much all crimes are committed by illegal immigrants anyway, right?
What a crock. Michael Reagan and his ilk are stirring up hatred for illegal immigrants by pointing out that they commit crimes. The rest of his points are valid, but to say that the crime never would have been committed and the victims would still be alive, that's presumptuous. Yes, illegal aliens commit crimes. So do legal aliens, natives, and tourists. Everyone from President on down commits crimes.
It's like the people who pointed out, a few years ago, that most violent criminals were men, so we should lock up all men preemptively. Maybe it would lower the crime rate, yes. But so would putting away all people who make below a certain amount, or all teenagers, or all black people. Yes, I said black people. Or all white people. Locking up any large sector of the population would no doubt, by casting the net so wide, round up a few criminals at least. Even if you locked up all 80 year-olds, there's a good chance there'd be a few criminals there, a few crimes they wouldn't be able to commit. All demographics have criminals, and to believe that being "lenient" with illegal immigrants is somehow increasing the crime rate is bogus. What's increasing the crime rate is making immigration so difficult for the vast majority of people who aren't criminals. Only criminals are desperate or rich enough to get in.
Now I told you that story so I could tell you this one.
Who the Hell is Michael Reagan anyway? His C.V. lists his father, and a book he's written about, guess what, his father. Yes, Michael Reagan is Ronald Reagan's son. This makes him an expert how?
Not that I'm saying that he shouldn't be allowed to blog. I blog. But his views are certainly given more weight than mine. Why? Because he's Ronald Reagan's son.
For that matter, who is Rush Limbaugh? Who are a lot of these demagogues who tell so many people how and what to think? Where are their credentials? Why shouldn't someone who knows what they're talking about be given the floor? It wouldn't have to be a left-winger. I think there are lots of conservatives who know what they're talking about. They have expertise. I may not agree with them, but at least if they're talking about immigration, they actually served on a committee regarding immigration. They aren't just someone's son, or some accidentally important person.
Know to whom you're listening. You can keep listening, but at least know who they are.
I'm hearing a lot of talk about the West recently. As in, "The West was victorious over Communism," or, "The power of the West has declined with the ascendancy of China." That kind of west. Not the Wild West, nor Adam West. The West, meaning the US and possibly portions of Europe that we like.
It seems we lost the war. It seems we're doomed to become second-class citizens. It seems we're failing. It seems a lot of things.
Guess what? These things are being sold to you by the same people who want you to believe that companies are only still alive if they're growing. And I've talked about growth-vs-death previously. So according to these people, since the West isn't growing as fast as the East (or whoever it is with whom we're supposed to be locked in competition, with apologies to those readers who might come from those places or be those people), we're doomed to fail, crash, burn, and die.
China has the fastest-growing economy in the world. Has for some time now. We should all be shivering in our boots because China is growing faster than we are. The problem with that point of view is that China started with essentially nothing, and for a long time wasn't growing at all, or was shrinking, so it would take a pretty hefty trick to pull off China not growing by leaps and bounds now that it has decided to embrace growth.
To put it another way, imagine for a moment that China's economic profit is 1 dollar. Work with me here, China's been selling international lemonade or something. Whereas the West has a combined economic profit of 1,000 dollars (we sell Ultra-Lemonade 2000 or something).
Now China makes some improvements, puts up bigger lemonade signs, uses cut-rate lemons, high-fructose corn syrup instead of real sugar, and makes 3 dollars the next month. That's a 300% change in profits. Meanwhile, good old reliable West, we keep chugging right along, and our profit for the next month is a cool 1,100 dollars. That's a change of 10% in our profits. So China's economy is growing 290% faster than ours. That's worrisome.
But wait. We made a butt-load more money than China. If China even made the difference in our two profits, the change would be in the order of 10,000%. And they still would only be making 100 dollars a month.
This is an overly simplistic example to illustrate one point: from a small number, a small increase results in a larger percentage growth than from a large number. So China, starting from almost nothing, may be growing quite quickly, but that shouldn't surprise anyone, really.
I'm not saying that China will never catch "the West." I'm not saying that we should sit back, rest on our laurels, and wait for that moment to come. For all I know, it may have already come. China may be making more money than the West right now, and that should motivate us to do our best to make money too.
But more than all that, my point is that just because China is doing well doesn't mean that we "lose." We only "lose" if we stop profiting altogether. And there are many ways to define "profit." I think it's fairly impressive, for instance, that during the Soviet era, the United States and the Soviet Union were both economic powerhouses, but the US did it without the various instances of ugliness that occurred on the dismal side of the Iron Curtain. I'm not saying it was perfect, but if we can maintain a thriving economy while not compromising safety or happiness, that seems like we're "winning" to me, even if we happen not to be making quite as much as the other guy.
Basically, my central thesis boils down to a question: since when does everything have to be a competition? Why can't we be happy that we're doing well, rather than obsessing over the fact that we may not be doing as well as the other guy? Why does "the West" have to "win?" Why should we lament the things that commentators seem bound and determined to have us lament? Aren't there enough other lamentable things in the world without worrying about "winning" some competition between East and West?
Plus, the whole conception of East and West seems pretty racist and paternalistic to me. But that's really beside the point.
There are too many times in this terrific world of ours when well-reasoned discourse falls by the wayside. For instance, there are many times when a logical argument would be helpful instead of fists. Or perhaps simply a listing of grievances, a la Martin Luther, or the many, many self-help books and couples' therapists in the world.
But I'm not here to talk about those times. I'm here to talk about the times when well-reasoned discourse is pointless because the other party is so beyond reason that trying to be logical with them is like trying to explain calculus to a rock. They aren't operating logically. They don't pretend to be. And the mistake there is wasting one's time trying to reason with them, when it's clearly pointless.
In some cases, these people have strong opinions, and those opinions run counter to one's own. There's no point in arguing; just accept that these people hold different opinions and move on. Far too much time is spent trying to argue people out of their opinions. If someone sincerely believes in the existence of God, for instance, there's not much point in arguing with that. You can argue with their reasons (I wouldn't recommend it, personally) or with the conclusions they draw based on this axiomatic belief, but if you simply try to argue someone out of their opinion on the existence or non-existence of God or gods, you are wasting your time.
Then sometimes, people are wrong. I'm not talking about opinion. I'm talking about fact. 2+2=4 kind of facts. This is the type of person you will encounter over and over again on the Internet. They are convinced of the rightness of their opinions and facts, and separating the one from the other is tough, and the facts are wrong, and the opinions are counter to your own. So you try to reason with these people. You try to tell them that they're wrong, that 2+2 does not in fact equal 5. You tell them that Barrack Obama isn't a Muslim, that John McCain does not have an illegitimate black child. You try to tell them that nowhere in the Bible does it say that God hates fags. You try.
And 99% of the time, you fail. You are wasting your time. These people are too stupid to understand that they are wrong. Who knows, maybe you too are among the ranks of these people. How many times have you been wrong and not known it? How many times has someone told you that you were wrong, and you didn't believe them because they happened to hold an opinion counter to yours. Because we allow people's opinions to sway our beliefs on the truth or falsehood of their facts, we all fall prey to this particular human flaw.
But the biggest flaw is trying to argue with these people. Don't bother. Just ignore them. Don't tell them they're wrong. Don't tell them anything. The best policy is to pretend that you've said, "Shut up you moron," to them and ignore them.
So, for the record, people who believe that guns are primarily used to hunt animals: shut up. Ditto to those who believe Barrack Obama is a Muslim or John McCain has an illegitimate black child. Shut up if you think that Communism is still the biggest threat to truth, justice, and the American way. Shut up if you think that entering Iraq has helped American security, or that we found weapons of mass destruction. And you people who believe that the death penalty saves money. That "a well-regulated militia" doesn't involve some element of state control or regulation. That the Bible says God hates fags.
I could go on. Every single day I run into people like this. And I used to feel an intense need, desire, almost an irresistible urge, to tell these people that they are wrong. They wouldn't listen to me anyway. So shut up, you stupid, stupid people. Shut up. God, just shut up.
I've probably commented on this before. Some people, no names, no blame (well, actually, a lot of blame, but I'll be nice) seem to feel that it's always too cold. And for some reason, they are the ones who get to control the temperature.
Now I'm sure there are a lot of people out there (okay, not a lot, since no one reads this, but humor me, oh imaginary reading public) who are aghast. "Why, I do think it's always too cold, but I'm never in control of the temperature! This guy is crazy, or possibly just a jerk!"
Okay, so we'll agree to disagree. I just haven't heard any major news stories about how people complain that, during the winter, the heat is always turned up too high. On the other hand, I just heard a major news story about the air conditioners in offices being set too low. So maybe there's a bias in the news media. Or maybe we're all convinced the other guy has it in for us.
See, the thing is, we shouldn't do either. Turn up the heat or turn up the AC, I mean. Environmentally, making sure the thermostat is set reasonably year-round is a good thing. It's also a good thing for our health. And yes, going from a cool environment to a hot one is just as bad as the other way around. No, I will not cite sources. Maybe I'm wrong. Please prove me wrong. But extreme variations in temperature, in whatever direction, are bad for the body. Prove me wrong.
Ah, but all people who like one extreme over the other, we argue in favor of this when it suits our needs. We say, "Oh, but keeping the house too cold in the summer leads to problems," or, "Oh, but keeping the house too warm in the winter leads to problems," but we don't say the same thing in opposition. For instance, you lovers of heat, you people who argue that air conditioners are evil and cost too much and are environmentally bad, what temperature do you set the thermostat during the winter? If you said, "Well... um... 103° on cold days," then you, respectfully, are full of crap. Likewise, if you want the heat turned completely off on all but the coldest days, at what point does the AC become "too cold?" If you said, "When my fingers and toes become frosty," see above.
No, I'm not arguing that we should turn off both heat and air conditioning. I just think we should keep things moderate. I happen to like cold, but I'm willing to turn the heat up a little if, in exchange, we can turn up the air in the summer a little. Or maybe, to be more economically and environmentally sound, we can turn both down. But no one seems to think this way. Because the heat and the AC are not running simultaneously, we only think of our sector of the year, and when your sector comes around, we want you to turn it down. And you feel the same way.
Eh, screw that "middle way" crap. The other guy is wrong, plain and simple. That's the attitude that's given us the world in which we live today. Hooray for self-centered behavior.
However, if my bedroom isn't cool, I can't sleep. And if my workplace is hot, I fall asleep. Explain that. I can't.
Okay, I may have in the past promised I wasn't going to turn this blog into a clearinghouse for me to say things like, "Look at this news article, isn't it dumb," but frankly, there have been a number of occurrences in the news which I'd like to talk about and which can only be given proper context by a news article. Therefore, examine, if you will, this article. It's all about how a court has ruled that Google must turn over all of its YouTube logs to Viacom as part of their ongoing lawsuit. In particular:
The viewing log, which will be handed to Viacom, contains the log-in ID of users, the computer IP address (online identifier) and video clip details.
Yep, that's right, if you've ever watched a video on YouTube (and who hasn't) your IP address has been stored by Google (this is disturbing enough for some people) and will now be shared with Viacom (and anyone Viacom shares it with). Sure, they're not supposed to do anything with it, and sure, they're claiming they will preserve your privacy, but since people have been able to steal information from other companies, it wouldn't surprise me at all to learn that, during the transfer, some of this information was stolen by a third party. But that's not really what I'm worried about. You can probably steal my IP address right now if you're so inclined. I'm more worried about what is said later on in the story.
The US court declined Viacom's request that Google be forced to hand over the source code of YouTube, saying it was a "trade secret" that should not be disclosed.
But it said privacy concerns expressed by Google about handing over the log were "speculative".
Really? Yes, really. Apparently, the code that makes up YouTube, code which probably changes all the time and would hardly be impossible to duplicate, code which would be protected in the same way that your privacy is being protected, and would legally be unable to be used by Viacom for anything other than their lawsuit, is more valuable and important to the court than your privacy. Ponder that for a while.
I'm not a privacy nut. I don't keep my identity a closely-guarded secret, accessible only to myself and the guy who hoards my money as gold ingots at the center of the Earth. I'm probably just as ripe for identity theft as the rest of us (not that they'd get much out of my identity). And I don't really worry that Viacom, or indeed anyone else, has seen my IP address and viewing habits on YouTube (it would probably make for some interesting reading, since my viewing habits on YouTube consist of some pretty eclectic material, and no I'm not talking about pornography). But the fact that the court views the privacy of millions of people as less important that the privacy of a company just adds fuel to the argument that the law treats companies unfairly (well, in this case).
Add to it that we have laws saying that companies are protected from lawsuits because they broke the law in a way favored by the government, or companies are only punished for being monopolies if someone feels like it, or the myriad other ways I could mention, and you've got a case. Which I do. Think about it. That's all I ever really ask.
Hello, and welcome to the wacky cavalcade of fun we call The Military Happy Fun-Time Hour!
You don't really need to read the story, but for the sake of transparency... here it is. Relevant text, in this case just to showcase my favorite quote of the day, is included below. The rest of the article says about what you'd expect.
America's top military officer has said opening up a third front in the Middle East through a strike on Iran would be "extremely stressful" for US forces.
Really? No kidding? I mean, that goes against all conventional military logic! How can it be!
Okay, sarcasm done. For those of you not in the know, two-front wars are bad business. They're why Germany lost World War II (well, one of the reasons was that they were led by a crazed, spittle-emitting dictator, but the whole two-front thing sort of naturally follows from that). They're why we currently are having something of a soldier-retention problem. They're bad news for armies.
That's largely because the number two is even, and armies don't like even numbers. Now the number three, that's odd, which means that armies like them and will approach them and eat food pellets out of their hands. Check out the serial numbers on all soldier's dog tags: all odd. Or the designations of ships: odd. Or the number of towers blown up on September 11th: even. Need I say more?
Okay, sarcasm again. The willful addition of a third front is so militarily irresponsible as to beggar description. Of course a third front in the Middle East will be "stressful." Hell, a second front in the Middle East was pretty stressful. And what exactly does "stressful" mean, anyway? I'm willing to bet they're not talking about the fact that there would be a certain amount of stress involved for the logistics personnel who have to ship all the troops to Iran. I'm pretty sure they mean the kind of stress which causes armies to lose wars.
What a marvel of understatement. This is not an argument against going to war with Iran. It's an argument against going to war with three different locations at once. It's an argument that is about as old as warfare. It's not even an argument, really, in the same way that saying, "Diving into molten lava will burn you," isn't really an argument against diving into molten lava. It's a fact. Three fronts: bad. Molten lava: bad. If you can't see that, then you have no business conducting a war.
Incidentally, I know that technically, one could argue that Germany was actually fighting a three-front war, what with Italy. In any case, Hitler actively chose two fronts, which was just poor strategy any way you slice it.
Hooray for Wesley Clark, who has the cojones to ask exactly how being shot down as a fighter pilot gives one qualifications for being a President.
Okay, now that I've said that, I also want to ask what the hell he was thinking saying that, because it's certainly not politic. I mean, if he hadn't been a general, he would have been immolated by the combined anger of all the military people in the world. As it is, he's just being hung out to dry. So no, I don't think it was the smartest thing in the world to do. It's a perfectly valid point, but maybe not intelligent to make it.
But is it really "questioning" John McCain's record of service to ask whether or not it gives him the qualifications to be Commander in Chief? That's like asking if your qualifications as a President are improved by your being a mother of three. No one is questioning that you are in fact a mother of three, just questioning whether or not that accepted fact (i.e. John McCain served in such and such a capacity) is necessarily a qualification for being President.
For the record, I think qualifications for being President are like the skills you list on your resume: anything can be a qualification to be President if you spin it the right way. For instance, one could argue that the aforementioned hypothetical mother of three has excellent qualifications to be President because she not only knows what it's like to be a mother (thus representing mothers everywhere) but also because as a mother of three, she's used to multitasking, dealing with petulant children (or those who act like them), and budgeting. I could go on, but you get the point.
So the appropriate response for John McCain to make is that yes, his service in the military does in fact give him excellent qualifications to be President, for reasons X, Y, and possibly Z.
Ah, but that would require reasoned discourse and logical argument, and thus is judged to pass directly over the heads of the target audience (i.e. the morons who vote). So instead, John McCain and everyone else says that Wesley Clark is questioning John McCain's record of service.
Now I don't know. Maybe Clark said some other things which did in fact question the facts of the case (John McCain served in the military, was shot down, was a prisoner of war, etc.). He would be a fool to question whether or not these facts are true, but hey, people questioned John Kerry's record of service. At that point, no one said anything like, "How dare you question his record," I guess because they actually were questioning his record, and not asking why his record made him qualified. If they had instead wondered why we're so obsessed with the idea of war heroes as Presidents, I suppose the media and everyone else would have reported that as "questioning Kerry's record" and been aghast.
And then there are the pundits who claim that Clark's comments are tantamount to talking about Obama's race. Guess what, geniuses. The only way that works is if someone questions whether Barrack Obama is lying about his background, that he is in fact a white woman in blackface, and has been leading us on all these years. That's "questioning." If, on the other hand, someone (it would probably have to be a black person, in the same way that only a military man could get away with the comments Clark made about McCain's qualifications) asked exactly how being a black man made Barrack Obama qualified to be President, pretty much everyone would react the same way, only they'd be wrong to do so. It's not racist to ask how someone's race qualifies them for something.
And then, Barrack Obama would go on television and call for his opponent to stop questioning his race, and leave the whole actual issue in the dust. And that issue is: what exactly do we as voters regard as qualifications for the Presidency? Being black? White? Christian? Muslim? A war hero? A pacifist (yeah, right)? A Senator (don't answer too quickly; a shockingly small number of Senators have managed to parlay that particular qualification into election)? A Governor? A beltway insider? A beltway outsider (that's pretty much as far out as we get, most times)? Just what makes one qualified to be President.
If John McCain had to answer the question of how his war service (which is all true, and I'm in no way questioning it) qualifies him to be President, maybe he'd say something useful. And maybe Barrack Obama would answer too, and tell us why being black has made him qualified to be President. And then maybe they could give us some other qualifications they happen to possess as well, and tell us why those qualifications work.
But it's politics, which means that what we would doubtless get nothing but empty soundbites and garbage. Which is why I say again, what was Clark thinking? He had to know he would be misrepresented (I won't say misinterpreted, because no one is interpreting; they're saying he said something different from what he actually said). What was he thinking?
So think about it: if we can't mention something without "questioning" it, how exactly can we talk about much of anything?
Well, I'm planning on getting three or four (maybe even five) credit cards and then running up a big old bill. Heck, I might sign up for an obscenely-poorly regulated mortgage too. And I'll buy a car on credit. Maybe a boat. Take that trip to Aruba I always wanted.
Because apparently everyone is in a "saving stupid consumers" mood. So I'll get lots of money if I just act really stupidly, right?
This is starting to sound a bit like those people who took out massive loans before Y2K in expectation that civilization would crumble and they'd get free money. Except in this case, it's not illegal. It's a bail-out.
Let me make my position on this crystal clear. If you do stupid things, you should probably have to live with the consequences. There is no Smart Police out there to check and make sure what you're doing is smart. So if you sign up for a loan and don't read the fine print, guess what, you're stupid and you are undoubtedly going to get sympathy and money from the government. If you spend beyond your means, you're going to get a terrific credit rating, and probably sympathy and money from the government. Anyone who spends, spends, spends is helping the economy, and so therefore we should encourage their stupidity by bailing them out.
I'm not saying we should let the economy crumble. Far from it. I am, however, saying that, while I don't have a lot of sympathy for predatory lenders, consumers ought to know better.
It is, to use an analogy, similar to playing the lottery every day for 5 years, then complaining that you've pissed a lot of money away for no result. Do we feel sorry for gamblers who lose? Well, probably we do now. Where's the personal responsibility?
If you're currently in poor financial straits because you were a working class schmo whose job was outsourced and then little Jennifer got cancer, my heart goes out to you. We should probably take away money from the government, from me even (though it's hard to get blood from a stone), to make sure that little Jennifer doesn't die of a treatable disease. We might even go so far as to take money away from other people and help you out with your house payments, which were perfectly within your means until you lost your job through no fault of your own.
If, on the other hand, you signed up for a mortgage with "Bob's House of Discount Mortgages, Savings, and Loan," and then bought three TVs, two BMWs, and that boat I want to buy, and now you can't make the payments because in the fine print it says that the company can adjust their rates to any rate they want at any time without telling you, then you know what? Screw you.
Likewise, if you're a big bank which invested heavily in Bob's House of Discount Mortgages Et Al, and now that Bob has run off to Aruba with his profits, he isn't sending you money any more, so you're going bankrupt and your CEO might have to take a pay cut, screw you too. The idiots who made those decisions should be fired, and their pay should go to paying people who are going to lose their jobs because of those idiotic decisions.
People are all about capitalism red in tooth and claw until it starts to affect capitalism's PR, at which point they're all about bail-outs. Know what? Screw them too. You think markets should be completely unregulated, so they can find their own levels because capitalism and libertarianism is the greatest? Hope you like it.
But likewise, other people are all about regulation, to the point where banks must decided whether people are being smart. Since when do banks have to be the Smart Police? It's worth it to them to do it in most cases, because smart choices with money usually lead to banks being able to collect on loans. But if they don't, exactly where is the accountability of the customer, who was stupid?
So I think I'll be really stupid with my money, and then people will feel sorry for me and offer to bail me out. And then I'll get to join the pity party too, and complain about being oppressed. I'm a white male; what other chance do I have to do that?
There's always been a lot of talk about representation in government. I mean, by us here in United-States-Land (and to a lesser extent elsewhere, although they've usually had a lot longer to talk about it). Taxation without representation is one of those little slogans that all schoolchildren learn but don't really understand.
But I'm not going to disabuse you of your notions about that particular slogan. No, I just mentioned it because representation is featured in it, and representation is the topic about which I want to talk. Because right now, there's a heap of talk about representation.
Women are currently complaining about the fact that they aren't represented in government (largely because Hillary Clinton didn't win the primaries). Black people complain about that too. So do various other groups, minority and majority alike. Because, see, as Americans, it's our God-given right to have people who look like us in government. If there aren't, per capita, precisely enough people who look like us in government, well then, we're being denied representation.
What a load. Because you see, I can and do vote. And yet there will never be a President who looks like me. Why? I'm under 35. I can't even have a Senator who represents me (I would have to be 30). And if I were under 25 (still voting age, last time I checked) I couldn't really have much of anyone represent me in government.
Or perhaps I should say, "represent," because that's not what the word "represent" means. Represent doesn't mean resemble. It doesn't mean look anything like. It doesn't even mean agree with. You can have representation which is totally in disagreement with you. We are not (indeed, few countries are) purely democratic, therefore we have representatives in government who act on what are supposed to be our best interests, but they don't necessarily have to do everything we say, nor do they have to look like us.
Look, I'm not arguing that only white men should be allowed to be included as representatives of the people. But by the argument that some people seem to be setting out, that's what I should believe, because I'm a white male. After all, I should be represented. The president won't accurately represent me unless he's a white man.
Instead of supporting a candidate simply because he or she looks like you, why not take a look at how well you think this person will actually represent you? Certainly, if you are black and feel that only an African-American can accurately represent you because only another African-American can know the struggles that you've gone through, then that's a good reason to vote for that person. If you feel that only a woman can represent you, because you're a woman, and only a woman can understand your issues, then vote for the woman.
The system breaks down a little when you consider that, if you're, say, of Pakistani descent and are missing one arm, there are no Pakistani amputees in the running this year. Likewise if you're a homeless dwarf. Or a hermaphroditic half-Swede-half-Melanesian. If you don't happen to fall into a demographic who happens to have a candidate running who resembles (I didn't say represents) them, you're sort of out of luck in this particular game. And you might have to choose a candidate based on something other than demographics.
Again, this is not to say that minorities shouldn't be allowed in government. Far from it. I will happily vote for a hermaphroditic half-Swede-half-Melanesian over a white man should the opportunity arise - provided that I agree with the hermaphrodite on the issues.
My suggestion is that we stop worrying about what these people look like, who they are, where they came from. Those things should only be factors if they affect the candidate's stance on the issues. So if a woman, because she is a woman, believes that my tax dollars should be used to fund research on breast cancer, that's important. But if she, because she's a woman, is viewed by some as bitchy, that's unlikely to affect my judgement of her.
Vote for a person who will represent you, not resemble you. I can't vote for a president who will be in my demographic, and neither can a lot of people. I don't let that bother me.
I want to call attention to the United States' government's brutal persecution of me because of my religious beliefs. It is completely unconscionable and should be denounced in the strongest possible terms. If you have congresspeople, you should write them and tell them that they should pass laws respecting my religion. If you don't do that, you should at least make sure that the local authorities don't persecute me by enforcing unjust laws which are only there to make my religion persecuted.
For you see, I am a worshipper of Baal, the dark power that demands constant blood sacrifices. By the light of the full moon, I must drain the lifeblood of a small child, or Baal will return to eat the world. I firmly believe this to be true. So not only am I being persecuted from my religious beliefs, but the US government is actively trying to keep me from propitiating Baal and in that way allowing him to eat the world. I'm not some loony cultist who believes in forced marriage or polygamy; I'm trying to keep the world from being destroyed. So it costs a few children's lives. It's worth it, in my opinion.
Thank goodness we live in a country where there isn't a clause in the Constitution which says that laws cannot be made respecting religion (to be fair, it's in the appendix, rather than in the body, but who needs a Bill of Rights anyway). And thank goodness we live in a country where, "You're persecuting my religion because I do things that are illegal," is an adequate legal defence. Because otherwise, Baal might not receive His blood sacrifice, and then the world might be doomed.
Write the government and tell them to enact laws allowing me and all other Baal-worshippers to do whatever we want, as long as it's a deeply-held religious belief of ours. For that matter, write the government and tell them that the Klan should be allowed to kill black people with impunity (since that's a fairly deeply-held belief of theirs), Nazis should be allowed to eugenically purify our society (can't get any more deeply-held than that), and pretty much every law on the books should be altered to include the words, "unless you believe otherwise." Because our government isn't supposed to restrict our beliefs.
Oh, and by the way, in case you're another thrall of Baal and would like to take offense at my depiction of our shared religion, guess what, you can't, because I have beliefs and you're persecuting me. Everything is right! Everything is permissible!
So it appears that China is going to take the Olympic torch on a whirlwind tour of the universe. I shouldn't say it appears, because that's what they're doing, and we've known about it for a while now.
But it does raise a question: what next? I don't mean for China. I mean for the torch. Frankly, once you've been up Mount Everest, what else can you do?
I guess next time the Olympics rolls around, whoever the country is will have to take it to the Moon. Or perhaps Mars. Maybe they can put it on a submarine and take it deeper than any torch has ever gone before. I guess the risks to the flame would be fairly great underwater, but then, I'd hate to be the poor bastard mountaineer who has to haul a torch up what is certainly not an easy climb to the summit of Mount E (I went to school with her cousin-in-law, so it's okay if I use the familiar name).
Actually, the question it raises isn't so much the snide one I was asking, but rather a twofold problem of symbol. First off, it's a flame, people. Flames do not exist as physical objects, and therefor cannot be carried anywhere. The burning material can go places, but unless you carve out a hunk of wherever in Greece and haul it up Mount E, the original material stayed right there with the original flame. But I accept that it's a symbol and that people don't really care about scientific fact, so I just felt the need to say it and then move on.
The bigger problem is one of the Olympics. Sure, I guess they're a fine symbol of world togetherness. I guess. Because the thing is, they don't bring the world together. They make us compete nationally, and no matter how they try to sell it, it's an exercise in rampant nationalism. It used to be an occasion where people from different countries could meet without killing one another, but we've moved beyond diplomacy-as-sporting-event in our dealings with others in the world. Besides, most of the time, the people who really should be getting together even though their countries are bitter enemies don't get together anyway.
So it's basically a big national pissing contest. And it's expensive. It's not just the competition between athletes any more; oh no, now countries and even cities within the same country compete over who will get to blow their wad on the biggest, most spenderific games yet. If it wasn't a competition, why would China take the torch up Mount E? Why would London bankrupt itself to have several weeks of tepid entertainment. Why would mouldering stadia dot the globe, testament to the disposable culture of the Olympic spirit?
I'm glad that people who have nothing better to do have an outlet. Since there's no Professional Gymnastics League to pay millions of dollars (don't tell me there is, I don't want to know), I'm glad that little gymnasts the world over have a place to go to win medals that are the tip top. I'm not down on sports entirely. But when you consider the amount of money we spend versus the payoff we get, I'm not sure they're cost-effective. It's very easy for me to say that, sitting here anonymously on the internet, home of the friendless, jock-hating loser. But I still think it deserves a closer look.
I am not, you may have come to realize, a warmonger. I am, perhaps, the exact opposite. So when I say what I'm about to say, you'll need to brace yourselves, because it might sound like I'm calling for massive airstrikes and ground assaults and all that other crap that people who say what I'm about to say usually call for after they get done saying what I'm about to say.
If it didn't work the first two times, it's not going to work the third time. And by that, I mean that, to distill my thesis, sanctions don't work.
My first comment was addressed to the fact that the UN has apparently decided that a third round of sanctions on Iran will undoubtedly do the trick. Guess what? I bet it won't. I'm sure that the Iranian government is just quaking in its boots about a third round of things of which they already have two rounds, which certainly did the trick in the stopping them department, didn't they?
Sanctions are a nice idea, sure. But what they essentially boil down to is that either they just make people pissed off or they make everyone but the actual targets of the sanctions poorer, sometimes both. They usually result in a diplomatic climate hardly conducive for constructive talks, and they tend not to have much of any effect on anything because not everyone supports them.
You want to see a case of "sanctions" really working? Try the Battle of the Atlantic in World War II. I mean, Germany sanctioned the living hell out of England. They were sinking any ship they came across. That was a sanction with teeth. And in the end, it pissed the British off, and a case could be made that it brought the United States into the war. Sure, there was some belt-tightening. But the only reason it came even close to working was because the British Isles are, get this, islands, so it was fairly difficult to get goods in in the first place.
Or how about Japan? The great powers sure showed them in the 1930s. We sanctioned them all the way up the tree. We sanctioned them so hard that they decided they needed to prove to the world that they were just as big and strong as everyone else, so they invaded China. And we sanctioned them for that too. Helped a lot on December 7, 1941. Helped the Philippines a heap. Helped all the Chinese in Nanking. And then, during the war, we cut the Japanese off. We took away every source of raw materials they had, cut them off from the rest of the world, and they were contemplating meeting us on the beach with sharpened sticks and hand grenades. Starving them out did precious little.
I could go on. North Korea. Iraq. Iraq again. Cuba. Burma, or whatever the hell they're calling it now. Iran. Lybia. And so on. Sanctions have worked so well in those situations, haven't they? Cuba is celebrating 50 glorious years of sanctions in a few years or so. North Korea is hurting for food, but they're not hurting for plutonium. Iran is just getting more and more radical.
Again, you can also see how the use of force to solve these little problems doesn't work either. But I dread the day when we live in a world where the only two options are siege or pitched battle. Sounds like a bad video game to me.
But go for it, UN. Why not? It's not like anyone will talk to one another, and it has to beat the pitched battle alternative. Maybe if it doesn't work, you should try a fourth round.
Okay, you know what, I've said it before but I'm going to say it again. Health care and health insurance are not the same frigging thing!
I know that the small brains of your typical voters have a hard time working this one out, so I'll speak in small words. Health care is when a doctor... sorry, healing guy, fixes your owie. It's when you go to the hospital... sorry, doctor place... sorry, healing guy building, and they make you all better. It's when the healing guy prescribes you medication... wait, I can't think of a dumb way to say that. Okay, the healing guy writes the stuff you don't understand on a little slip of paper and you go to the place with all the bottles that isn't a bar and hand the little slip of paper to the person behind the counter and you get pretty pills to take. That's health care.
You want to argue about the efficacy or relative superiority of the health care system in this country, be my guest. I think there are probably a few things which could be made better. But you know what? It's a totally different argument from whether the health insurance situation in this country is bad.
Let me put it to you this way. There are various laws which say that a lot of health care must be universal. For instance, if you show up at an emergency room with a bullet in your chest, they aren't allowed to throw you out because you're black, a woman, or of the wrong religion, to my knowledge anyway. Maybe they do, but they're not allowed to. And guess what, they're probably not supposed to throw you out if you don't have the money to pay them right now. I still don't know if that's true, and if it isn't, that's a problem with health care, not insurance. But let's just assume that emergency care cannot be denied. That's universal health care right there.
Not only that, but I'm fairly certain that if you show up at a plastic surgeon with a fistful of cash and want them to give you a nose job, they aren't allowed to kick you out because they don't like the cut of your jib. That's pretty universal there too. So this talk of "universal health care" is bogus. There's already universal health care. If you can pay for it and you need it done, brother, the doctor will be right with you.
But see, if you can pay for it yourself, you don't need health insurance. It might be cheaper if you had it, but if you're independently wealthy, you can pay your entire doctor's bill in singles if you'd like (say, if you happened to be a very popular stripper). Health insurance is insurance, not "you can't get medical attention without this." It covers the expenses you can't afford to pay for yourself, in exchange for a regular fee. It's not in insurance companies' best interest to insure people who are going to take out more than they put in.
But that's beside the point. The point is that health care is different from health insurance. If your doctor accidentally cuts your leg off, that's a problem with health care. If your insurance company raises your fees 200% and you can no longer afford them, that's an insurance problem. That's why people go to Mexico for medical attention; they don't have insurance, and as a result, they cannot afford to pay for their health care. That's not a problem with a lack of universality of health care in the United States, it's a problem of money, and to a lesser extent, insurance. The health care is still universal, and what's more, it's universally expensive.
So I'm tired of hearing people bitch and moan about "universal health care." We've got it. Universal insurance, on the other hand, we don't have. And a cost-effective health care system, universal though it might be, we also don't have. And those problems have very little to do with simple issues. Health care costs too much because of insurance, specifically malpractice insurance. Drugs cost too much because we like them to be regulated. Sure, you can go to Mexico, where if a doctor cuts your leg off or your aspirin is tainted with lead, you have very little recourse. And it's cheaper. Ponder that, melonheads.
I really thought it couldn't get much worse. Let this be a lesson to you kids to never think that, because it can always get worse.
Specifically, I refer to this gem of an article from the BBC. I don't make it a habit of simply linking to articles and saying, "Oh dear God!" but I had no choice. Yes, it's one of those.
As is my usual practice, I shall quote the relevant passages below, although the whole thing is so screamingly... annoying isn't really the right word, but it'll have to do... screamingly annoying that it's worth a read.
Thousands of people have gathered in Louisiana for the christening of a US warship built partly from steel salvaged from the World Trade Center.
The twin towers in New York were destroyed in the hijacked planes attack of 11 September 2001.
Friends and families of 9/11 victims were among those at the ceremony for the new amphibious assault ship, the USS New York, in the base of Avondale.
The bow contains 7.5 tonnes of steel taken from Ground Zero.
It also bore a shield with two bars to symbolise the towers and a banner with the slogan Never Forget.
Where to begin? Well, I'll take a cheap shot at the BBC for starters: exactly to whom is this story addressed? I take it from the second paragraph (I use the term loosely, since the BBC apparently believes in the "new school" of internet journalism where every sentence must be a new paragraph to emphasize its importance) that this story was written for people living on Mars under a large rock with their fingers in their ears. Because you know what, everyone else already knows that "The twin towers in New York were destroyed in the hijacked planes attack of 11 September 2001." No kidding, BBC. Okay, cheap shot over.
Let's move on to more substantive fare. One: I hate "Never forget." I've made that pretty plain. Two: according to another part of the article, "In the US Navy, state names are normally reserved for submarines, but former New York Governor George Pataki had asked for the ship to carry the name." What, he couldn't wait for a submarine? No, sorry, because amphibious assault ships are bigger and better, and New York deserves bigger and better. Never mind that it could have been the USS September 11th or something like that. No, it had to be the USS New York. Seems a bit unfair to New York City, lumping them in with the rest of New York State. I feel deeply for them, understand, because I think New York City is just the greatest place on Earth and deserves to have, at minimum, a space shuttle named after it. Possibly every single ship in the Navy should be renamed USS New York City Kicks Every Other City's Ass Never Forget Bald Eagle Weeping.
Okay, I got a bit carried away. Because the part I really wanted to talk about was the bit with the steel. See, steel is funny. It tends to stop being strong in certain circumstances, like those during September 11th. It would be a supreme irony if this ship was sunk because of weak, recycled steel used in its construction. Unless, of course, it was reforged, in which case it's a meaningless gesture. Which, of course, it is.
I am not against America. I do not think that September 1th was a great day. I am filled with sadness by the thought of September 11th, for many reasons. And because I was not a part of it, nor do I have anything more than a passing connection to it, I can't say how it should be commemorated. But I can tell you that using steel from wreckage to build a warship wouldn't be high on my list.
Lee Ielpi, president of the September 11th Families' Association, told Associated Press: "We're sending a message that we're standing strong. This ship, as it cuts through the water, is going to send a ripple. That ripple will say, 'We cherish our freedom'."
You know what Lee? I cherish my freedom, specifically the freedom I have to say that that quote is the biggest load of crap I've heard in months. I want my freedom-cherishing to be said by something other than a ripple, thank you. But I'm not a September 11th Family, so I guess I can't be part of your association. If that's the kind of thought that's coming out of it, I'm sort of glad.
And I'm sorry for your loss. I hope the prospect of weak steel, which doubtless played a major roll in the demise of your loved ones, riding out to the open sea, driving before it a ripple of freedom (not to mention a whole lot of things which are basically only useful for killing other people) gives you closure.
Hey, I know this may come as a shock to many people out there, but all the fear-mongering about Islam is largely crap. There are quite a few people who seem to think that there are so many Muslims in this country (apparently hiding out somewhere) that we're in danger, somehow, of being overrun by a massive wave of unassimilated Muslims (if the Mexicans don't breed us out first).
The problem with that brilliant thesis is two-fold: one, it's hard to judge how many Muslims there are in the United States, but even if you take the largest estimates, we're not talking about half the population; and two, part of the reason why it's hard to figure out the Muslim population is because they've assimilated so well. So either you believe that there are millions and millions of hidden Muslims out there, in which case they're hardly likely to be a threat in terms of assimilation, or you believe that no Muslim in this country has assimilated and never will. In either case, you are, politely-speaking, a moron.
I'm not defending terrorists. Lordy no. Nor do I really feel like stepping up to the plate for Islam, since I'm pretty much down on organized religion in general. But Islamophobia is racism, plain and simple. I don't care if Muslims flew the airplanes into the World Trade Center. I don't care if most terrorists we hear about (and that "we hear about" is an indication of something, too) are Muslim, or at least identify as Muslim. It is racist to believe that Muslims are somehow worse people, just as it is racist to believe that African Americans are worse people, or Arab Americans are worse people, or Asian Americans are... wait a minute.
See, when people say, "Muslim," they usually mean, "arab, or possibly black, or maybe in a pinch asian." Because if you're a European-type person, you're either not a Muslim, or you converted which means you don't need to be assimilated. So when we worry about "Muslims" what we're really worrying about is race.
Well guess what? Jews hate Muslims, right, and they can't both rule the world. And we've been scared of Jews ruling the world for much longer than we've been scared of "Islamofascists" (a word I cannot stand because it means something completely different than either of its root words).
So which will it be, wackos? You can't have the Elders of Zion and Barrack Obama the Secret Muslim. Those two are pretty much mutually exclusive. You could posit that one really controls the other (my money's on the Elders of Zion, personally, but it's an easy bet for me to make since I don't believe any of it) but then only one really rules the world and you only need to worry about one of them. So which will it be?
In case you were wondering, I'm back, bitter, and sarcastic, and I hope you're smart enough to recognize sarcasm when you read it.
