People Have Too Goddamn Much Time On Their Hands

We're getting off to a rocky start with the title, and I promise you, it will only get rockier.

twitter

Internet diarrhea. Who the hell actually uses this site for anything important? Is there any use that matters to which this site can be put? It's like stream-of-consciousness, but for the stupid. Really stupid. Okay, so exactly like stream-of consciousness. Seriously, what the hell? Exercise in content-generation gone horribly, horribly wrong.

Social networking sites

There's not even any content generated here. It's just like posting a picture of your face on a billboard and hoping that something good will come of it. "Here I am!" appears to be the operative phrase. Guess what? You're there, I'm here, and nobody cares.

Social bookmarking sites

These might be marginally useful, except they're overflowing with crap. Sifting through the chaff to find the wheat is nearly as tedious as simply ignoring the site and doing one's searching for one's self. Yes, optimization of searching is terrific, except to optimize, you have to put in just as much effort.

Blogging

Yep, I got there. Exactly why do any of us think that spending the time to write these things is a good use of the fairly limited amount of time we have in this life? Some blogs aren't useless, but again, it's all about filtering. And most blogs are diaries. Blah de blah de blah. If I wanted to read your poorly-phrased thoughts on your daily life, I'd ask.

The new Knowledge Blogs from Blogger

Nice idea in principle. Lousy idea in actuality. Giving everyone a forum to sound authoritative is just as dumb when you call it a new name. I know you want people to give credentials. Guess what? Not too hard to lie. Communal knowledge is a tricky thing. Usually, you need to charge a cover to keep out the riffraff.

Wikis

Seriously, who has the time?

Forums

Okay, even taking the time to insult them is a waste of time.

Web 2.0 comments

Get a life, people.

twitter

Jesus H. Tap-Dancing Christ. Really, I can't see a point for twitter at all. Short crap generated by morons for morons. Every fifteen seconds. From cell phones. Probably while driving. God, sometimes I hate progress. If it's even progress, which I debate. Everyone calls certain things progress, but I'm not sure it's a correct use of the word. Progress isn't just being able to do new things. By that appellation, I could call cutting both my hands off progress, because it would enable me to do new things almost certainly. Not things which wouldn't be better done in another way, but new things nonetheless. I don't see how it helps.

Bias

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.

200

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.

Kettle, Meet Pot

"[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.

NABA

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.

• My body is covered with less toxic sludge!
• I have less gonorrhea!
• My children hate me less than they did yesterday!
• President promises less corruption!
• Cuba killing fewer babies!
• Cuba raping fewer babies!
• Cuba eating fewer babies!
• Cuba wearing fewer baby skins!

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.

• My body is covered with less toxic sludge!
• I have less gonorrhea!
• My children hate me less than they did yesterday!
• President promises less corruption!
• Cuba killing fewer babies!
• Cuba raping fewer babies!
• Cuba eating fewer babies!
• Cuba wearing fewer baby skins!

And so on.

The "Cool" UN

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.