Shut Up

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.

System Shock

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.

YouTube Is More Important

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.

Stressful

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.

What Is "Questioning?"

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?

Start Bailing

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?

Represent

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.