Homepage
Music (down)
Design
| Monday, May 26, 2008 |
| For a voting test |
I've had it. Right up to here, I've had it with the willfully politically ignorant. I understand people are busy. I don't expect people to understand the nuances of the U.S. medical care system. I don't expect dissertations on the pros and cons of economic models. I expect basic competence.
Am I mad? You bet. Smear campaigns have a long history, but when people can rationalize that Barack Obama is a Muslim and has a crazy Christian pastor -- those people need to stay at home on election day. Of course, there are dumbasses in both political parties.
In an ideal world, I would expect every single American to generally understand a lot of basic, basic ideas that have real-world effects - even if they don't know the term. For example, pick [A] or [B]: The price of a gallon of gas went up last summer, because a lot of people [A: bought more gas to go on road trips] [B: stayed at home and didn't drive as much as the rest of the year].
A very, very basic knowledge of the laws of supply and demand - and for that matter, logic - would tell you the correct answer.
Every single American should understand:
- The very barest outline of American history (i.e., 1776, 1812, the Civil War, 1917, 1941, Vietnam).
- How tax deductions work with a normal 1040.
Is this elitism? Am I looking down my nose at the "working-class" people? You bet. But I'm working class, too.
There's a strain of anti-intellectualism in the U.S., and I suppose it's rooted in our history of being the independent-minded that can't be told what to do. But when pride in being able to do what you like - pride in freedom - becomes an excuse to wear stupidity like a badge of honor, it's just an excuse.Labels: idiots, politics, voting |
posted by Steve @ 12:46 PM  |
|
|
|
| Monday, May 19, 2008 |
| Insert Punchline Here |
It's just too easy: Miller and Busch beers are making camouflage cans aimed at hunters.
Anybody see something wrong with getting more beer into the hands of the people with guns? Rachel also notes that they might not be able to find their beer after the first 6-pack...Labels: alcohol, guns, idiots, joke |
| posted by Steve @ 9:22 PM |
|
|
|
| Sunday, May 18, 2008 |
| One last thought on Bush's comment... |
Some seem to believe that we should negotiate with the terrorists and radicals, as if some ingenious argument will persuade them they have been wrong all along. We have heard this foolish delusion before. As Nazi tanks crossed into Poland in 1939, an American senator declared: "Lord, if I could only have talked to Hitler, all this might have been avoided." We have an obligation to call this what it is -- the false comfort of appeasement, which has been repeatedly discredited by history.
Why the hell would I want to take diplomatic advice from George W. Bush??Labels: Bush, idiots |
| posted by Steve @ 12:28 PM |
|
|
|
| Friday, May 16, 2008 |
| On Hamas and negotiations |
"We need the United States to lead rough-minded diplomacy, this includes direct engagement with Iran, similar to the meeting we conducted with the Soviets at the height of the Cold War"
- Barack Obama, 15 February, 2008 Aaand our boy George's rejoinder:
"Some seem to believe we should negotiate with terrorists and radicals, as if some ingenious argument will persuade them they have been wrong all along," Bush said at Israel's 60th anniversary celebration in Jerusalem. We have heard this foolish delusion before. As Nazi tanks crossed into Poland in 1939, an American senator declared: 'Lord, if only I could have talked to Hitler, all of this might have been avoided.' We have an obligation to call this what it is - the false comfort of appeasement, which has been repeatedly discredited by history."
- George W. Bush, 15 May, 2008 Ah, the difference between "appeasement and "engagement." Obama never said, "appeasement," and you can bet your life that Reagan "engaged" Russia. There were four Gorbachev/Reagan face-to-face summits around the world. Those meetings directly resulted in the Intermediate-Range Nuclear Forces Treaty. Reagan is deified for this role in closing the Cold War peacefully, but his methods are, it seems, forgotten.
But to clarify: Hitler was appeased when the British and French gave him half of Czechoslovakia and hoped he'd stop. Russia and the U.S. entered talks to end the Cold War and agreed to reduce their nuclear weapons arsenal because both recognized that MAD wasn't a good situation for either nation.
I've been looking at the rhetoric between Obama and McCain, and at this point, I don't think either one will do anything differently from each other (regarding this question of diplomacy, anyway). In a way, all I see is McCain pandering a bit to the Republicans, and Obama pandering a bit to the Democrats. Both have said they’d only talk to Iran when they recognized Israel's legitimacy, but that we’ll have to eventually talk to Hama – they might support terrorists, but they won a democratic election in the region. They are, by our own measure, the rightful leaders of that area.
We also do have really good reasons to open relationships with both of those nations. Iran is at least as influential to Iraq as we are, whether we stay or go, whether we like it or not. Moreover, they're the ones getting open ceremonial greetings in the daytime. Cheney had to come unannounced, at night, with body guards. They are also in desperate need of humanitarian aid, need help getting their own country into shape, and Iran's population isn't as radical as its leader. We both have needs that we can help each other out with. The situation is not impossible, but can be made impossible when we dismiss the possibility of finding a mutually-beneficial arrangement. Same goes for Hamas, but even more so: Hamas supports terrorism abroad, and yet runs hospitals, feeds the poor, and takes care of its people. That's how they got elected. Israel also needs to have a good sit-down. They're our staunch ally, and are definitely a stabilizing force within the region, but they can make us pretty uncomfortable when they do land-grabs, or lob missiles into family homes, and Hamas says, "See? This is why they're evil."
None of that can be solved by ignoring the problem, or threatening to bomb everybody in the region that angers us at that particular moment (which was Iran, then Iraq, then Iran again, then it was Hamas, etc.).
Now, this is all just a general outline of course – the complexities that are the Middle East have made it nearly impossible to stabilize since… forever. I don’t know
From what I know about both candidates, their top priority for Iran is to keep them from developing and acquiring nuclear weapons. I know Obama played a part in this a few years ago while working with Republicans on the anti-nuclear weapons proliferation bill. Though I don't think McCain was part of that, I think it's pretty obvious he feels the same way about it.
For Hamas, if I remember right, I've heard both say they want Hamas to recognize Israel's legitimacy (which would be an obvious first step). Obama has, more candidly, noted that Israel is causing problems as well when Israel takes the same posture towards Hamas as Hamas takes towards Israel. He's been blasted for this, but it seems pretty fair to me. Even the Israeli Jewish press (Israelis are less convinced that Israel has flawless plans than the U.S. Jewish press, which seems convinced that any criticism of Israel is out-of-bounds) has generally agreed that Obama is about as "Pro-Israel" as any U.S. politician.
Anyway, like I said, this all strikes me as political buddying-up with each candidates' political base, but I see no daylight between their stances. Still, I don't think it helps McCain at all to defend Bush, the Least Popular U.S. President of All Time, Ever (really).
Here's a really good write up I found about the difference between appeasement and diplomacy here, by someone who was/is for the war, just to show I'm not just being a Loony Lefty, here.
Update: Boy, I'm really not alone. Obama actually went on the attack to denounce the remark (which is rare, though I can't decide if that's good or bad). Nancy Pelosi called it "beneath the dignity of the office of the president and unworthy of our representation at that observance in Israel." Keith Olbermann spent more than a few segments about it. Chris Matthews laid the best damn TV-interview smackdown I've seen since Jon Stewart's Crossfire hot-wiring.Labels: Bush, idiots, Obama, politics, TV |
| posted by Steve @ 11:31 AM |
|
|
|
| Tuesday, May 13, 2008 |
| West Virginia: FAIL. (Or: quote of the day) |
From Gawker, on a Clinton supporter's assertion (from the Financial Times article)that "Obama is a Muslim and his wife's an atheist":
Mr. Simpson, that does not even make sense. You think a secret radical Muslim would marry an atheist? Even if it was purely to piss off Christians? Sleeper agent jihadists are not known for their tolerance of Enlightenment principles! Seriously, West Virginia, we are going to give you back to Virginia unless you can demonstrate that you can handle statehood again. And no one wants that.
West Virginia, everybody! Land of rampant racism*, morbid obesity, and it's so poor and so unemployed that there is a town named Poverty in West Virginia. I'm making fun of you, WV. Buck up and raise yourselves.
*Although, as my Dad pointed out, the other primary of the day was the home of the largest KKK rally of all time, in Kokomo, Indiana.Labels: idiots, money, Obama, politics, race |
| posted by Steve @ 11:49 AM |
|
|
|
| Thursday, May 08, 2008 |
| Misguided Feminism |
I've written on productive feminism before (1, 2), but this bears another mention. There is a cry going up to the heavens from hardcore feminist supporters who are saying they will not vote (or, incredibly, vote for McCain) out of anger about Senator Clinton's loss of the Democratic nomination:
The Obamabots are under the delusion that if Obama wins the nomination (which he hasn't yet, by the way), all of us in the Hillary camp will forget about the misogyny and come over to their side. Make nice for the sake of party unity. Forgive all the abuse. Nope. Several of us have tried over the past couple of months to explain why that won't happen, but the Obamabots don't seem to understand. And I know why: it's because they don't take sexism seriously. When women say we will not reward misogyny, we’re laughed off. The Obamabots just tell more jokes and hurl more insults and write more crass articles about how the little lay-dees have their little pan-tees in a twist.
While I can see why a feminist would be upset at general bias, Barack Obama was not the cause of that bias. In fact he made a point to tell her to stay in as long as she wanted to, emphasized their friendship in speeches, and never said anything to or of her that could be construed as sexist. He obviously didn't agree with all of her policy ideas, and many of her campaign tactics, but frankly that's what an election should be about anyway. So why blame him?
Moreover, he two candidates' stances on a wide variety of issues is very similar. If a feminist were to agree with Clinton's policy ideas and was not just voting for her because of her gender (which would in of itself be sexist), then he is the next-best candidate. If John McCain appoints judges to overturn Roe v. Wade as a result of a feminist boycott, well, you could press shirts with irony like that.
Not everyone who votes against Obama is a racist and not everyone who votes against Clinton is a sexist. Surely some people are! But to lump everyone together like that is counterproductive because it insults feminist allies. All of the falsely-accused will stop listening to reasonable feminists.
Finally, I wish they would consider the possibility that while there's certainly a LOT of misogyny that has been spewed, a lot of people really, honestly, just thought Obama was a better option on purely merit-based grounds.Labels: feminism, idiots, Obama, politics |
| posted by Steve @ 4:34 PM |
|
|
|
| Monday, May 05, 2008 |
| Great understatements in Photojournalism |
I personally wouldn't have been able to refrain from commenting on the idiot carrying this picket.
The anti-immigration people never seem to do their arguments any favors by jabbering (or painting) incoherently while foaming at the mouth all the time.
 Dialog, people; not bullhorns.Labels: idiots, immigration, Mexico, politics |
| posted by Steve @ 10:22 AM |
|
|
|
| Monday, April 21, 2008 |
| Best Blog Comments, Part 1 |
On a political blog:
I was totally out raged.
Try harder next time Labels: blog, grammar, idiots |
| posted by Steve @ 8:40 AM |
|
|
|
| Thursday, April 17, 2008 |
| "Making politicians uncomfortable" |
ABC asked about a million questions about Wright, lapel pins, '60's extremists... basically they asked a crap load of questions the Bill O'Reilly wouldn't have had the gall to ask, especially in an arena in which policy details between two candidates are nuanced and so need more scrutiny. Oh yeah, and the economy is doing badly, and we're in a war, and social security is a problem, and there's also medical insurance prices... but no, let's talk more about the pin!
It was horrible. And yet some idiot named David Brooks thinks that a nation deciding on its President based on inane idiocies like this (as opposed to what they will do about actual problems in the nation) is somehow defensible:
I understand the complaints, but I thought the questions were excellent. The journalist's job is to make politicians uncomfortable, to explore evasions, contradictions and vulnerabilities*. Almost every question tonight did that. The candidates each looked foolish at times, but that's their own fault. If the moderators' job is to make the candidates uncomfortable, they could've dropped trousers and taken a crap on the stage.
It was about the same effect.
* Wrong. It's to find out who is the best leader.Labels: idiots, politics, TV |
| posted by Steve @ 10:25 AM |
|
|
|
| Sunday, April 13, 2008 |
| Far-Right: (Still) Obsessed with the homos |
I looked about six months (maybe a year) ago at Conservapedia, the right-wing answer to Wikipedia, that "is free of corruption by liberal untruths," such as science or reason.
It's still going strong, though of course they've expanded slightly - they have 22 thousand pages now. I'm sure at least one or two isn't about God, liberals, or gays. Which sounds great until you realize that Wikipedia has roughly 10,000,000 (at a glancing guess; count if you like), and in about a hundred languages. The conservapedians also love trashing Wikipedia itself, claiming that the entry for "conservatism" is "over 4500 words of confusion without any mention of marriage, gun rights or personal accountability." I guess Wikipedia's authors lost the mouth-breathers when they started quoting Hobbes.
Ironically, Wikipedia has a fantastic entry about Conservapedia that tells the whole story about how it was created, why, and other things that are laughably terrible.
Anyway, the reason I check in every so often is because they have a wonderful "top 10 articles" thing that comes with Wiki, the code engine that runs the site. Once upon a time, it was the subject of an auto-clicker bot, but the numbers have shifted... towards different homo articles. And Hitler. In that article, Jews are mentioned twice, and homosexuals don't even merit a mention. Instead, there's a long section about how the Nazis liked to espouse evolution.
Wow.Labels: Conservatives, idiots, Internet, Nazis, school |
| posted by Steve @ 11:27 PM |
|
|
|
| Saturday, April 12, 2008 |
| Finding Love for America |
Regardless of whether or not he wins the Presidency, there is one thing I'm grateful to Barack Obama for. I'm finding out just how much I like or dislike America.
The America I love is full of idealism and grit. It's the nation that got to the Moon, and always acts with its heart in the right place (even when it screws up). It's the nation that faced its demons of segregation head-on and won. The America I love is one in which the determining factor in success is work, not wealth or birth or luck. It retains the almost fanatical Puritan work ethic that built the nation to begin with.
The America that I can't stand is willfully ignorant, judicial, and blames all its problems on other people. It thinks that torture is OK, that Muslims are all evil and crazy, and is so much quicker to judge than to think. It's the America that can't get through a non-fiction book, a movie that questions their world-view, or a speech that asks them to work for what they want. It's welfare-think; group-think; pundit-think.
I know that America is both sides, just as I'm both hard-working and lazy in turns and circumstances. Obama, because he says things as honestly as he can, exposes both sides. When confronted with the anger of his own pastor, he didn't run away; He used it as a metaphor for American Blacks writ large. The America I hate is willfully ignoring that anger and bristles at the thought that anyone could be angry at America - even when a black person is 8.2 times more likely to be in prison than a white person. At that rate, about one in three blacks would have done some jail time during their lifetime.
So much for land of the free.
And Obama took that head on, and, more bravely asked America to look at themselves and their own families for that kind of racism. As an example, he acknowledged his own grandmother as occasionally saying some strong stuff. People freaked out! Oh my God! That nigger called his grandma a racist!
It's so much easier to point a finger than to think about yourself and your own family in a critical light. I've heard an occasional slur out of my friends, family, and myself, although here in Arizona it's much more likely to be directed at a Mexican. Or maybe I look at someone differently, or cross a street earlier than planned. But unless you are looking, you won't find it.
More recently, he acknowledged another kind of anger, and again it was used to manufacture some outrage. He noted how communities in the Rust Belt have been struggling for decades, and that struggle leads to anger that the politicians' promises never materialize. That anger is expressed not in right-left politics, because after thirty years, they know that doesn't matter. So instead it's expressed in the more-polarized politics of God, guns, and gays. But Obama caught flak for this because he, again, pointed out that yes, people are angry.
It's easier to be outraged than thoughtful.
I love to hear people disagree with the policies he wants to implement. That takes thought and at least a basic understanding of policy in general. I hate to hear people ignore his pleas for self-criticism, and for acknowledging anger and real problems within the nation.
So Obama will tell me how much I like this nation. I try not to let the pundits tell me what the nation thinks - they can't help but color their thoughts with their own opinions - and I know there is a bit of both, but who is the majority? I am so afraid and hopeful.Labels: ambition, idiots, Obama, people, politics, president, voting |
| posted by Steve @ 12:09 PM |
|
|
|
| Thursday, April 10, 2008 |
| God's Judgment... of idiots |
The Stranger, a Seattle newspaper, has a blog (called Slog). It's very liberal, and overtly pro-gay, partly because it's moderated by the fantastic and fabulously gay Dan Savage. Those who fly that banner are often frustrated by arguments that "every child deserves a mother and father" when nearly half of the children today only get one or the other. They're also frustrated by a Catholic Church that points its finger at them as the root of all childhood evils (through declarations and oft-contradicted studies), and is regularly caught molesting its own congregation's children.
So, Slog regularly contains news of badly-behaving parents and youth pastors, under the headings "Every Child Deserves a Mother and Father" and "Youth Pastor Watch," respectively. To an extent, it's an unhealthy impulse on their part to feel better about their own parenting or moral standing by exposing the worst of their opponents (who, ultimately, have no effect on their parenting abilities or moral standings); but then, pointing out hypocrisy in any form is a worthwhile goal.
Elsewhere in the newspaper, in their Last Days news bits blotter, a few articles about people "killed by religion" were posted. They detailed the sad deaths of children of people who believe in faith healing over medicine. They got an apoplectic response from a guy named Dale Richard Huff that I just had to show bits of:
I want to make clear firstly that I do not peruse your scandal sheet. There are volunteers who read the Stranger and inform us when a campaign of anti-Christian slander has slithered from the sewer like a demon from Hell.
I think I tried telling my Dad I didn't read his Playboys in a similar manner when I was a teenager.
I thought you liberals hated interrogating "terrorists"? Oh that's right that is only for your "approved" religion of Islam and the Islam-o-fascists [sic] whom you believe to be somehow your "buddies". Hee! Islam-o-matic! Tel-o-thon! Mess-o-potamia! Nutty guy-o-mail!
...the Secular Fascist Left, been doing for 30 years to eventually annihilate Christianity, Christians, America, Faith, [etc.] ... Mussolini defined fascism as being a collectivistic ideology in opposition to socialism, liberalism, democracy and individualism. So ... what exactly is a "fascist lefty"?
And rest assured this lawsuit WILL GO FORWARD, and your conspiracy will answer in OPEN CHRISTIAN COURT for your lies, defamations, slanders, [etc.], flat out meaness [sic] and rotteness [sic], and any other damn thing you have up your sleeve and haven't been vile enough to do yet! Ok, the day there is a Christian Court in the U.S. government, the United States will have died, and I will leave the country. I'm a Catholic, and I'm very happy that I don't live in a Christian Nation. There has been a long, steady trend throughout History: quality of government is inversely proportional to the influence of religion on that government.
Need I remind you, sir- glorious [volcanic] Mount Raineer [sic, should be Rainer] is a scant 60 miles away from your temple of degeneracy, and the LORD GOD will not be mocked! Wow. He certainly does seem to think he knows everything Lord is up to, doesn't he? Among the meek, this character is not.
IN THE NAME OF JESUS, HIS FATHER, SON AND THE HOLY SPIRIT- Dale Richard Huff, SEMPER FI DO OR DIE! Jesus had a son?
Look, God judges everyone, and it should be noted that His judgment of idiots is usually pretty harsh. These judgments, ironically, are often titled, "Darwin Awards." Sometimes, He acts through people, though His use of gravity seems to be a favorite.
Unfortunately, the judgments aren't very evenly fair. Children, in particular, have to absorb the results of their parents' idiocy. To me, the most ironic and saddening instances are ones involving
people whose stances on religion are idiotic enough to visit pain on others. I don't see the reasoning behind faith healing. By all means, pray. I prayed when my brother-in-law Jordan smashed his head a few weeks ago, but I certainly didn't want to keep him out of the hospital that saved his life.
God, cruelly, gave us a brain that can only wrestle with these contradictions of faith and the real world, but cannot solve them. But clearly we are meant to use that brain! Scientists and doctors labor to find ways to ease and lengthen the amount of time we have to wrestle the impossible mental task we're given. We'll never do it, of course, but a little more time in front of the puzzle before bed is something we're all entitled to ask for.
God may be great and powerful, but we have a measure of power, too, and since it is God-given, we should use it. Part of that power is in medicine. Unfortunately for those kids, their parents were so in awe of God's power that they ignored their own helplessness.Labels: God, government, idiots, Jordan, religion |
| posted by Steve @ 12:28 PM |
|
|
|
| Wednesday, April 09, 2008 |
| G.W. Bush: 30% Approval |
George W. Bush's approval ratings are, on a historical scale, pretty abysmal. He's in second place, behind Nixon (who ended his term at 24%), and ahead of Carter (34%). Of course, we've only had this since the mid-50's, so it's hard to say how historically bad that is. I suspect Harding and Grant would have had similar numbers.
That said, I'm a bit appalled that the number is as high as 30%. What does Bush have to do in order to gain people's disapproval? His own party doesn't want him anywhere near their presidential candidate. His presidency has been an abysmal failure on almost every metric that could be imagined: the economy, the war, Katrina, scandals galore, corruption, the debt; the list goes on forever.
So how is it that one in three Americans still approve? What does he have to do to gain their disapproval? Teabag their mother? Should he go on tour to do this, just to see if it would work?
Either way, it looks like most historians will be skewering has one of, if not the worst Presidents in all of American history. An informal poll found 61% of historians rating him as the worst. Not as "really bad" but as "worst ever."
So maybe he doesn't have to punch a nun on CNN after all.Labels: Bush, history, idiots, politics |
| posted by Steve @ 9:47 AM |
|
|
|
| Monday, March 24, 2008 |
| Clinton supporters scare me |
It's becoming clear to me that, once you're at the level of a congressman or occupying some other rare-air position, the only kinds of lies that will sink you are small lies that take more than ten seconds to explain, and infidelity. The more ridiculous your stories, the less likely they are to sink you, especially if it takes a gnat's attention span to explain. Cheney's Fourth Branch of Government is a classic example of this, but Clintons thousand tiny lies also illustrate the problem.
The Clintons are too smart to punch a nun on MSNBC. But I wonder what level of sleaze Clinton supporters waiting for before finally ditching them. She's had so many little lies and ridiculous lies, and problems with her campaign that (to me) it amounts to a huge collection of little sleazes:
I don't generally hold subordinates' or associates' opinions to be the same as their bosses (Ferraro, Wright, Power, etc), and all of that list - written off the top of my head - doesn't even acknowledge how good a candidate Obama is. It's just a rote list of the sleaze that has turned people away from Clinton.
Yet her supporters dig in further. I don't understand it.Labels: idiots, politics |
| posted by Steve @ 1:21 PM |
|
|
|
| Friday, March 21, 2008 |
| Dream Juice |
When I was teaching, I tried not to think too hard about how I was making an impact on the students' lives. The pressure would've caved in my already imploding head.
I know there's an influence, because I was for some reason thinking of a situation in which I have always wished I'd had a comeback. You know what I mean - ohh I wish I had said that instead of standing there like a dumbass.
This particular situation happened when I was still waffling between getting a music degree and a graphic design degree. I had written a mediocre song out on staff, and wondered what an "accomplished" music student would do with it. I gave it to one of the grad students that was teaching music at the time. I asked if he had taken a look at it. He had. I asked what he would do with it. He said:
Trash it. Start over. It's crap. And he walked away.
I wish I had said (and I say to him now): I hope you slip on all that dream juice between your toes, jerk.
I have a certain amount of sympathy for the stresses of being a teacher and a student. I do. But in that situation, in which someone's confidence in their own abilities is on the line (and it was: I left the music program shortly after that), nothing justifies being an asshole about it. In some ways I'm glad I left, though, because the sheer snobbery in the program was palpable.
Labels: anecdote, idiots, Impulse Nine, music, school, teaching |
| posted by Steve @ 2:12 PM |
|
|
|
| Wednesday, March 05, 2008 |
| IE6 Users: You SUCK. |
Upgrade your damn browser. I am amazed that you've even managed to find a computer that came with it. Lord knows you can't download it from Microsoft anymore... and haven't for about a year and a half.
Look, IE6 sucked. It was buggy, even when it came out. It will take you three minutes to download IE7 or Firefox or Opera. Do it. Please.
I am not going to put up with your crap browser and your inability to upgrade anymore as a web designer. When IE6 came out:
- iPods did not exist.
- The World Trade Center still existed.
- The Segway was just a rumor.
- USB 2.0 was brand new.
- Cell phones didn't have color screens.
- Google had a few dozen employees.
- The newest version of Windows was ME.
Ugh.Labels: design, idiots, rant, work |
| posted by Steve @ 9:38 AM |
|
|
|
| Saturday, February 02, 2008 |
| Hive Mind vs. Groupthink |
In general, I like Microsoft Vista. They made a lot of changes that obviously needed to happen, added a bit of chrome, and generally it works for me. Now, I realize this is because my computer kicks ass: two dual-core 3GHz 64-bit processors, 4GB RAM, two RAID arrays totaling 1TB, and a pair of 512MB video cards connected to a pair of flat monitors.
Yeah, I know.
The trouble with Vista, though, is often that it's new: compatibility and configuration are a bit harder. I had this problem when I couldn't figure out why my video card wouldn't display higher than 1024x768 (I prefer 1280x1024). Thankfully, there was this little article on softpedia, describing the symptoms exactly and how to get around it.
Apart from the incredible convenience of the article, it's remarkable how specific the article is. This is an example of how the Internet allows for group thinking that isn't hampered by "groupthink." The first time I saw this potential was way back in 2001 when the movie A.I. had the first really successful alternate reality game (later named by its participants The Beast). The game was impossibly difficult for any one person - it required people to work together. Unfortunately for the developers, their own puzzles (which required knowledge of dozens of languages, expertise in chemistry, physics, philosophy, programming, and other sciences) would be solved within minutes by the thousands of people who worked on the solutions. Inevitably, someone in the Cloudmakers (as the participants named themselves; the website is down but the link goes to the Wayback Machine cache from 2002) knew how to solve the problem.
I love this concept: the Internet allows communication between people. People are generally inherently capable. MIT created "Fab Labs" that were able to create most anything (3-d printer, circuitboard printers, etc.). 3 students at MIT are doing their theses on the work of six year old villagers in Africa, who had better basic designs than the engineers in the U.S. Harnessing the total knowledge of a huge group of people is something that, if it can be done efficiently (i.e., with a minimum of groupthink), would be as massive a step forward as the Industrial Revolution.
I'm pretty glad to be alive sometimes.
This dissemination of information isn't limited to merely solving technical problems or riddles. It has also been suggested by Scott Adams (who writes Dilbert) that if a massive e-mail pen pal initiative among all nations would make it vastly more difficult to go to war:
"You might support your government in a war against a country full of people you don’t know. But would you support a war that has a good chance of killing your e-mail friend Phlubanakawahaha and his entire family?" Also, if that family helped design your super-cool phone/lamp/radiator, you might think twice if you wanted to upgrade anytime soon.Labels: blog, cartoons, computers, government, idiots, information, Internet, life, people, politics, power, random, reason, technology, war |
| posted by Steve @ 5:46 AM |
|
|
|
| Friday, December 07, 2007 |
| Torture, Cont. |
"There are been several Gitmo detainees who've confessed under those circumstances. The issue is morality, though, and is water boarding unethical." - Ms. Proctor Confessions under torture - and waterboarding has been recognized as torture since the Inquisition - aren't reliable, since people in that situation will say anything to appease the interrogator. That's why the Inquisition liked it so much: get the confession and execute.
Confessions under torture are the source for so much wasted paranoia and, I would think, wasted work for our Intelligence workers about plans that never existed. Some of that has leaked to the public, and so it is also the source of a great deal of, well, terror.
So by dropping all of its previously-untouchable moral standards about torture, the U.S. has helped terrorists succeed in their main goal: terror.
This exact issue about whether nor not the only problem with torture/waterboarding is the morality or legality has been addressed already by professional interrogators before the Senate:
"I find it curious that in the debate involving the so-called “ticking bomb” scenario, there has been a pre-supposition that physical, psychological, and/or emotional coercion will compel a source to provide actionable intelligence, the only issues in contention being those legal and moral arguments in favor or in opposition. To the best of my knowledge, there is no definitive data to support that supposition and considerable historical evidence to suggest the contrary."
- Former USAF interrogator Steven M. Kleinman's Statement before the Senate 9/25/07 So, despite from the fact that up until now, the U.S. was a bulwark against torture (Reagan, Eisenhower, Washington) and causeless imprisonment and nobody would've even thought that in America we would even have to debate it, torture doesn't work anyway.
So despite some people's problems with finding moral problem with causing excruciating mental and physical pain, hopefully I've at least appealed to their sense of practicality. Lord knows that's the only way to get any corporation to stop amoral behavior.Labels: conspiracy, idiots, politics, torture |
| posted by Steve @ 11:15 AM |
|
|
|
| Thursday, December 06, 2007 |
| Torture: Amoral and Ineffective |
A follow-up to the "Compassionate Conservatives" who have a hard time wrapping their minds around the idea that it's BAD to hurt people, even if they're bad people.
Seriously, what did these people's mothers teach them in grade school?
"There are been several Gitmo detainees who've confessed under those circumstances. The issue is morality, though, and is water boarding unethical." - Ms. Proctor
Confessions under torture - and waterboarding has been recognized as torture since the Inquisition - aren't reliable, since people in that situation will say anything to appease the interrogator. That's why the Inquisition liked it so much: get the confession and execute.
Confessions under torture are the source for so much wasted paranoia and, I would think, wasted work for our Intelligence workers about plans that never existed. Some of that has leaked to the public, and so it is also the source of a great deal of, well, terror.
So by dropping all of its previously-untouchable moral standards about torture, the U.S. has helped terrorists succeed in their main goal: terror.
This exact issue about whether nor not the only problem with torture/waterboarding is the morality or legality has been addressed already by professional interrogators before the Senate:
"I find it curious that in the debate involving the so-called “ticking bomb” scenario, there has been a pre-supposition that physical, psychological, and/or emotional coercion will compel a source to provide actionable intelligence, the only issues in contention being those legal and moral arguments in favor or in opposition. To the best of my knowledge, there is no definitive data to support that supposition and considerable historical evidence to suggest the contrary."
- Former USAF interrogator Steven M. Kleinman's Statement before the Senate 9/25/07
So, despite from the fact that up until now, the U.S. was a bulwark against torture (Reagan, Eisenhower, Washington) and causeless imprisonment and nobody would've even thought that in America we would even have to debate it, torture doesn't work anyway.
So despite your own problem with finding moral problem with causing excruciating mental and phyisical pain, hopefully I've at least appealed to your sense of practicality.Labels: idiots, military, politics, torture |
| posted by Steve @ 9:20 PM |
|
|
|
|
| Throw all the Women into Guantanamo |
I really try not to get riled up by things that are clearly meant to rile me.
I'm not very good at this, apparently, because when I read this, well, I felt compelled to respond:
"You know, liberalism is a greater threat to freedom, democracy and human rights than these detainees. Maybe we should consider a swap."
- Amy Proctor This is in response to a report on CNN, in which the reporter notes that in addition to the restrictions that the detainees had "no contact with the Red Cross or a chaplain, no books or mail, a Koran, but no prayer beads or cap," they also were occasionally rewarded with TP but prevented from handing it out to others.
"I think what's really notable about this is just the incredible petty cruelty and dehumanizing aspect of all of this. Detainees are punished for tearing a sheet or for very, very minor infractions."
-Jennifer Daskal, Human Rights Watch Amy's response to the was, "Oh, ye gads, the inhumanity."OK, that's the setup. Make up your own mind for a minute.
~~
Now here's what I have to say to Ms. Proctor:
1. Can you explain how people who are trying to be sure that the U.S. protects human rights are a threat to human rights?
2. As for swapping terrorists and liberals, Conservatism and Liberalism is a balance. Without the former, you have bloated government that can't balance a budget*; without the latter, we'd still have segregation and no women's suffrage - your opinion, as a woman's, wouldn't be valued if not for Loony Liberals. I couldn't even refer to you as "Ms." Proctor. So if throwing all the liberals into Guantanamo Bay Detention facility is feasible, well, why not throw in all the women, too, since they benefited so much from liberalism? We'd jail half the country either way.
In other words, your smearing brush is too wide; your rhetoric is absurdist.
3. I agree that, when caught, tried, and proven guilty, terrorists need to be tossed into a cell. But since those detainees in Guantanamo are rarely actually tried in a court, it's hard to say whether or not they're actually guilty. I personally think it would be AWESOME to see these people tried on public TV. I would watch with rapt attention. I would cheer when we proved, conclusively and transparently before the world, the guilt of those who are guilty and I would cheer just as much when someone who is innocent is proved innocent.
4. It's been known since the 1500's the torture isn't an effective means of interrogation. It's great for false confessions, because tortured people will tell you anything you want, especially if you threaten family. But when you're getting false confessions, and basing your entire nation's intelligence activities on false information, you are in much worse shape than if you hadn't tortured. I didn't come to this conclusion - people who interrogated for a living came to that conclusion:
That said, the sum total of my experience suggests the most effective means of conducting interrogations—and by effective, I mean achieving consistent success in obtaining accurate, comprehensive, and timely information—is through what has been frequently described as a “relationship-based” model. Let me emphasize that this is far more than just establishing rapport; it involves the pursuit of operational accord. Employing non-threatening principles of persuasion and enlightened cultural finesse, the interrogator seeks to establish a productive, nonadversarial relationship wherein the source perceives his interests to be best served by engaging cooperatively with the interrogator.
Since issues relating to coercion and torture continue to occupy centerstage in the public debate over this country’s interrogation policy, I feel compelled to briefly address this issue, especially as it relates to the question of effectiveness. I find it curious that in the debate involving the so-called “ticking bomb” scenario, there has been a pre-supposition that physical, psychological, and/or emotional coercion will compel a source to provide actionable intelligence, the only issues in contention being those legal and moral arguments in favor or in opposition. To the best of my knowledge, there is no definitive data to support that supposition and considerable historical evidence to suggest the contrary."
- Former USAF interrogator Steven M. Kleinman's Statement before the Senate 9/25/07; Emphasis mine
Feel free to discuss in a way that doesn't insult either one of our intellects.
*Of course, the only presidents in the last 50(!) years to balance the budget were Democrats: Johnson and Clinton.Labels: evil, idiots, politics, torture, war, women |
| posted by Steve @ 1:47 PM |
|
|
|
| Wednesday, October 31, 2007 |
| God's way of saying... |
... shut the fuck up, Phelps. If He hates anyone, it's you.
And anyone else taking His name for hate.Labels: gays, God, idiots, religion |
| posted by Steve @ 5:27 PM |
|
|
|
| Wednesday, October 17, 2007 |
| Actual Craigslist post |
Raw pseudoephedrine and red phosphorus available in bulk one pound boxes. $ 50lb come by 17661 w oatman rd
marana, az 85653 call 248-4115 when in driveway if no answer come to door.
Need to sell fast Moving Glass ware for sale also
*** You agree by calling or showing up you are in no way affiliated with any law enforcement**** I'm really hoping they neuter whoever is involved with this when they're caught.Labels: craigslist, drugs, idiots |
| posted by Steve @ 12:56 AM |
|
|
|
| Tuesday, October 09, 2007 |
| Completely Retarted Statement of the Day |
Fox News - pinnacle of slanted journalism - has a story about how Senator Obama's pastor is black, unhinged, racist, black, not truly Christian, not truly white, and also, he's black.
Especially, they were really worried about Obama because his pastor had used a dirty word when talking to his inner-city congregation, and how they might find it easier to find God through their poverty and minority status.
Then, they pulled out this gem:
"If Barack Obama has really submitted himself to his church like he’s claimed, why does he have a different expression of faith from his own pastor?" asks Anthony Bradley, theologian and research fellow at the Acton Institute in Grand Rapids, Mich. OHNOES! Senator Obama is committing the Deadliest Sin: disagreeing with his leader. The Conservatives must be reeling in horror.Labels: idiots, Obama, politics, religion |
| posted by Steve @ 4:44 PM |
|
|
|
| Wednesday, September 05, 2007 |
| Case for Isolationism |
Selling billions of dollars of weapons to people that hate each other isn't the best way of going about bringing peace to any area.
But that's what the U.S. has been doing for years and years, including a new$20 Billion in weapons going to Saudi Arabia soon. The Daily Show said it much better than I can, and I'm so impressed that at the risk of losing the video somewhere -- I transcribed it. Here it is:
Transcript:
Obviously, the Iraq war is very complicated. It's another reason why Barack Obama's foreign policy inexperience is going to be an important issue in this campaign. You can't have a newbie
overthrowing the delicate balance that we've engineered and maintained in this complex region.
For instance a week in Iraq has meant a strengthened Iran; and since Iran is Shiia, our Sunni friends in Saudi Srabia are none too happy about that. But that's no problem in our experienced hands.
[America to the rescue graphic with G.W. Bush: "We will bring freedom to others -- and we will prevail."]
Yes, a few weeks ago, the White House announced plans to sell 20 billion dollars in weapons to the Saudi Royal Family.
Boom! Balance of power restored.
Trust me, you don't have to worry about billions of dollars in weapons being sent to a country like that, because may I remind you: a full 20% of the 9/11 highjackers were not from there.
Of course, this move may intimidate our curcumsised friends to the west [Israel]. They may be nervous because Saudi Arabia is considered somewhat friendly with Hamas. Although, I don't want to overstate the case. I mean uh, the Saudis like Hamas, but it's not like they've had telethons for them in the past, and it-- ah-- O.K.-- I'm being told they have actually held telethons for Hamas in the past, but that's not going to be any problem.
[America to the rescue graphic]
Because last week the white house announced that it will increase aid to Israel by 25%, meaning an additional 30 billion dollars over the next decade to them.
Oh billions of dollars, is there no dispute you can't settle?
You might ask, "how did we get so experienced at this?" Well we've been rescuing the Middle East for some time now. Think back to 1990, when a oil-rich, very nice little country named Kuwait was invaded by the very not-nice Iraq.
[America to the Rescue, "'90s version" with George Bush, Sr.: "We will help any government that wants our help."]
That's a 90's version of that graphic [laughs].
Of course, we stopped short of actually invading Iraq at that time; I think you remember the Secretary of Defense at the time [Dick Cheney] made a pretty strong case against it. Said it would be a quagmire. He was smart.
See, at that time we had to weaken Saddam Hussein, who had become very powerful after purchasing a s---load of weapons from-- oh boy.
[America to the rescue '90's graphic]
Oops! See that time we had to give him the weapons because then he was at war with Iran.
But see then, once Saddam got real powerful, we had to worry that he would topple our friends in Saudi Arabia. Which is why we put troops there, which kinda pissed off, uh, that guy [Osama bin Laden], who had also become very powerful fighting the Russians in Afghanistan after getting weapons from SONOFABITCH!!!
[America to the rescue "'80s style" with Reagan: "Reach out a hand when they fall"]
WHAT THE FUCK?!
My point is that foreign policy experience is very important! Because it helps you learn nation-building! Which is knowledge we can take -- to our country and apply to rebuilding our own infrastructure, like when our roads crumble. [Looks to the side for a prompt; apparently told this is a bad example]. Or when our bridges collapse [looks hopefully at his prompter and is told to try again]. Or when a hurricane wipes out one of our cities [same prompter says no way]. Midnight basketball?
[America to the Rescue graphic comes on but screws up and ends up with a beeping Indian test signal]
[pregnant pause]
Fuck.Labels: idiots, politics, religion |
| posted by Steve @ 7:45 PM |
|
|
|
| Monday, August 27, 2007 |
| Gay Old Party |
I swear there's more homos per capita in the Republican Party than there are in the general public.
Actually, I put this question to a good friend of mine whose friends may be able to figure this out, which would be awesome.
Anyway, so this Senator Larry Craig spends his time in the Senate doing what he thinks is right for Idaho, including: voting to prohibit marriage between members of the same sex in federal law, voting to abolish a program that helps businesses owned by women or minorities compete for federally funded transportation, voting to prohibit job discrimination based on sexual orientation, voting to keep the definition of hate crimes to exclude gender, sexual orientation and disability, and supporting for amending the constitution to ban same-sex marriage.
We'll give ol' Larry points for consistency, at least, though the ACLU doesn't like him (he has a 25% 'civil rights rating').
Anyway, so a little while ago, an undercover cop is sitting on the john in an airport because apparently a lot of 'lewd behavior' was happening there. I don't like trying to go to the bathroom in an airport while two people are humping in the next stall, so I'm fine with that, my stances of pro-civil rights for gays be damned.
And the Esteemed Senator stares at the cop for a while through the crack in the door, making weird hand movements ('fidgeting' is the word that's used). After a few minutes of this (must've felt like hours to that cop), he gets into the next stall. He puts his rolling case at the door.
According to the cop, this is standard procedure as the case will keep people from seeing said lewdness: "My experience has shown that individuals engaging in lewd conduct use their bags to block the view from the front of their stall". I read that and think, "there is a procedure for getting man ass in a stall?"
Now, I understand the need for this kind of procedure. Proposition the wrong guy and he might just start attacking you. I just didn't know it was this well-established. I would also like to say, though, that if you're gay, don't pick up people like this. There's a basic, basic problem: you can't see much of them before you start making moves. Careless, borderline-anonymous sex is hardly unique to homosexual culture - I was a DJ in a bar, I saw it every night. I guess part of the appeal is that it's totally insane, but -- I'd expect better from a 62-year-old hard-right conservative Senator.
The Esteemed Senator (the cop had no idea who he was at this point) starts tapping his toes loudly. This is apparently a signal for engaging in said 'lewdness,' and I can back the cop up on this because I've used some public restrooms and I assure you that a men's room in the United States is quieter than a morgue (other than the inevitable sounds, and those are cause for extreme awkwardness). Talking, socializing, humming and anything but a grunt (which is also an inevitable sound) is just not acceptable.
So a dude in the next stall tapping like Fred Astaire is going to weird me and any other normal, heterosexual guy out. A lot. It's not normal.
After a while, apparently, the Senator edges his foot towards the cop. Again, if that's me in the stall, I'm going to snap off a piece of the grey wall next to me an | | |
