What is a conservative? What is a liberal?

Let's start with an anecdote. I once had a former cube neighbor loudly accuse me of being a "damn liberal," in much the same tones as we often hear from the likes of Limbaugh, Coulter, and others. I almost couldn't believe he was "going there," as they say. The only reply possible, and which I gave him, was that he didn't know anything about me. Which he didn't.

So the other day I read that the voice behind Little Green Footballs is "parting ways with the right." Now I read that Andrew Sullivan is doing something similar. Many others, some of whom Sullivan cites, have done the same.

So, what about me? When asked, I describe my politics as socially liberal, but fiscally conservative. I believe in public education--perhaps the single most important thing we could do with our money--and I believe that being the richest country (well, being in the top ten, or so) automatically makes us capable of providing for the health of our poorest and least capable. These folks are not all old, and we should take care of them simply because we can. I also see the value in some other "social programs" such as food stamps, because not everyone getting food stamps deserves to starve. Some will take advantage of the system, sure, but the good greatly outweighs the bad. So, I guess you could say I'm socially liberal.

But I am not a fan of the kinds of unlimited spending we've been experiencing. I think war and defense spending are outrageously over the top, because we are paying much too much to kill others, when we could/should be paying to help others. Soldiers die and big business gets rich. Meanwhile, over 15% of Americans are out of work. Something's wrong with this picture, here.

I manage my finances with care and restraint. I don't risk what I can't afford to lose. Everyone should, so I guess that makes me a fiscal conservative.

With respect to differences of opinion, I have no problem talking seriously with someone who doesn't agree with me. Let's talk; we can work it out. As long as we both are looking at the same problems realistically and rationally, and both agree that it will take all our combined efforts to fix things, then that's fine. I don't expect to get everything I want; no one else should expect that, either.

My take on today's "conservative right" is that many of them are simply nuts. They don't seem to have a firm grasp on reality, and to me that's just dangerous. Most so-called conservative pundits (like Limbaugh and Coulter) are simply pandering, and that's no better. It may even be worse, since they know the difference.

The Princess and the Frog

I've seen the trailers for this new Disney animated feature. My initial impression has been that the toothless firefly character (well, almost toothless) is racist in the way he is portrayed. But perhaps blacks see him in a different light. It's a fine line to be walked, no doubt.

My family members are Hispanic. Both my wife and her daughter (now living with us) felt the firefly image to be racially inappropriate. I know how much more sensitized I've become to racial stereotypes: the dark skin, the ah ... nose, the curly hair, etc. It's inevitable, though I simply cannot see how such things as minor appearance differences are significant.

My wife's complexion is somewhere in the middle, as far as it goes. She's darker than your average WASP, and her nose shows her African ancestry quite plainly. But I say, "so what?" She has described herself as having the Puerto Rican flag "tattooed" on her face. Her daughter's complexion is lighter and her facial features are more European than African. But though Puerto Ricans have a thing for skin/hair color (the worst thing would be to be very dark with nappy hair, which many have), both of them have found similar racist attitudes here in the states. My wife thought she was continually being scrutinized when she lived in Louisiana. Perhaps not so much here in the Midwest. But then, again ...

None of us are terribly interested in this new Disney movie, but we may change our minds, depending on the reviews. It might not be so bad.

So, why does any of this matter to me? If we're on the subject of racism, why does it matter, and whom am I trying to convince? I know how I feel, and I don't need to convince anyone of anything. If someone thinks my wife is half-black, then that's fine. She isn't, quite, but she's some significant percentage, for sure. I really don't care. Man, it's hard enough to find someone to be with as it is. If I worry about a bunch of insignificant stuff, I might miss someone really nice. I don't, and I didn't. I guess that's my point.

There is so much more to us as individuals, regardless of our physical characteristics and cultural heritage. We need to be looking for ways to come together--and work together--rather than focusing on how some of us aren't like the others. Because everyone is a minority of one.

Karmic Koala Netbook Remix - bug update

A little while ago I blogged about some of the bugs I encountered when I installed the Karmic Koala Netbook Remix on my Acer netbook. Here's the run-down:

1. I never got past the upgrade installation glitch. Instead I booted from the CD and installed Karmic from there. I upgraded my desktop over the web. It only took about 5 hours to download the whole thing via my wireless network, but it worked.
   
2. I installed the Ubuntu 9.10 boot enhancement stuff, which has improved boot time, but it's still not as zippy as Jaunty was. Better, though.
3. I'm getting used to the new login screen. It actually contains more information and some options, so it's not as bad as I originally reported.
4. No more menu ghosts. I think they fixed this problem.
5. There still isn't a File System shortcut, but I'm getting over that one, as well. We must be adaptive to change, you know.
6. They have also fixed the touchpad glitch. It now stays disabled, which I am grateful for. I'm weird, I know, but I don't like touchpads. Oh, and I can work my Logitech Nano V450 mouse against my leg. It will almost work on any surface, even a rather nappy blanket.
7. I still don't know how to remove some of the stray icons, but I no longer care as much.
8. They have obviously changed the battery time calculations, but in net it still gets almost 5 hours of battery life.

I have completely bagged Firefox on Linux, and now use Google Chrome (even in beta it works very well) as my browser. I can't wait until they introduce some plugins, especially one that blocks adverts.

I want to commend the folks who fixed some of these bugs so damn quickly! There is no chance whatsoever that a commercial software company would have been so rapid in their response. I think I'm catching on to this new way of thinking: To get the über rapid fixes, you might have to put up with the occasional stray glitch.

On a semi-related side note, Songbird refused to work on my desktop machine under Jaunty. But now with Karmic (Desktop version) it works quite well there, as well. I like Songbird for playing music, except that it doesn't remember the current playlist between executions. That's an almost taken-for-granted feature of other players like MediaMonkey and WinAmp. Sadly, both of those are Windows-only players.

Hello from Google Chrome (on Linux)

It isn't yet ready for public release, but Google has the latest development build nicely packaged for flavors of Linux that can install from a .deb file. Ubuntu (I have Karmic Koala--the Netbook Remix) is one of the flavors of Debian, so installing Chrome was fairly easy.

When installing it asked about importing Firefox settings, which I assumed meant bookmarks (among other things). It may have imported other things, but not my Firefox bookmarks.

It also wouldn't launch the first time, but I grep'ed the processes and killed them, then relaunched it with success. I'm writing this blog post from Chrome. In a few minutes I'll see if it can be shut down and relaunched.

It's very fast by comparison, certainly faster than Firefox, but I wonder how it will perform once it's loaded down with all the crap we usually hang on Firefox. Probably still better.

I understand the Windows version is further along, and you can easily download and install it. I probably won't do this, right away. But, as for many things, who knows?

All hail the Karmic Koala

If you don't know who (er, what) Karmic Koala is, I will gladly educate. Karmic Koala is the upcoming Ubuntu 9.10 release, which came out October 29, 2009. With all the press talking about Windows 7, this latest update from Canonical has all but been lost in the noise.

But fair enough. Why should you (or anyone) care?

Believe it or not, for most purposes (that is, the purposes most people put to their computers) Ubuntu Linux works quite well. Web browsing (Firefox), email (Evolution, Thunderbird, etc.), Word Processing (Open Office), music (scads of apps, but Rhythmbox is very popular). It even comes with a torrent peer, ZIP/RAR file tool, PDF display tool, and the list of available applications certainly doesn't end there. The really cool thing is that all these applications are cost free. You ain't got to pay anyone a dime to use 'em. Contrast that to Windows. The lack of any need for virus protection, alone, should make a difference.

Just today I installed Ubuntu Karmic Netbook Remix on my netbook, and though getting everything set up again has taken most the afternoon, I'm basically quite pleased with the new look. My ongoing objective is to keep the netbook lean, clean, and relatively uncustomized in order to make future upgrades smoother and simpler.

One new feature is Ubuntu One, which is 2GB of "free" cloud storage integrated into Ubuntu. That would be fine with me, except: 1) it's not encrypted, and 2) the file upload blew up both times I tried it. Maybe I'll try again later, but so far it doesn't look very promising. Stay tuned, I may post more as I have more to post.

Life is an adventure

My stepdaughter is a senior in art school. Money is tight, so we have offered to have her come live with us. This really is much easier and less expensive than trying to help her monetarily, otherwise. As long as we don't fall on any really bad financial hardships, collectively, we should be fine.

Now my biggest problem is clearing out our office (really the front bedroom in our two bedroom condo) to make room for her. This means no home for either of our desktop computers. I've started looking into making my computer an Ubuntu Linux file share, since it has 1.5 TB of disk space, but I still do need to boot a Windows machine for no other damn good reason than I am chained to Quicken for home financial management. Methinks I will start looking for a better alternative, but not right away.

My wife Carmen will get a new laptop, probably with Ubuntu, for all her web surfing and letter writing needs. Open Office and Firefox are both familiar in this household; she uses Firefox already so there's no real problem.

We're already wireless, here, so we should be in good shape with just a couple purchases of new laptop equipment. For printing I'm going to look for a wireless printer that supports CUPS, and we'll all use it for our everyday printing needs. I'm pretty sure we'll be able to print, wired, to either of our existing printers (both Dell, BTW), but wired printing would mean moving to where the printer is. Who knows, it might not be a huge problem.

On a personal note, I am very excited to have Emily here. I could gush on and on about how great she is, but in the off chance she actually reads this blog, I think I'll just say what I've already said and leave it at that.

I know there are a lot of logistical things to be worked out, but these should pose no real problem. The dog will probably have to learn not to bark at night if/when she gets up, but we're all prepared to deal with him when the time comes.

I may or may not post more about this change in our lifestyle as time goes on, but I thought I would at least share, this time.

Follow-on to my post about racism

[T]he problem of race in America has never been solely or predominantly a minority issue. It is first and foremost, as Carter said, a problem of whiteness.

A little while back I posted my opinion of folks who are making very vocal complaints about being labeled racist. Today I come across this article which expands the point even further. It is a bit long but worth reading, especially if you care about eliminating the issue of race as a divisor in our society. The author makes a point I think bears repeating; it's summarized above.

A somewhat longer quote gets to the heart of the matter:

It's a one-sided deal for people of color; as "post-racial" in effect means post-black, post-brown, post-red and post-yellow, while leaving the normative racial framework of whiteness intact. Race is the challenge people of color must confront and, dare I say, "get over."

But a post-racial America does not demand the same of those who identify with, and claim the social construction of, whiteness and perceived privileges and cultural superiority therein.

This is why, it would seem, Obama's body standing behind the American presidential seal has a critical segment of America losing its hold on reality -- a reality, I would argue, few have ever been forced to acknowledge up to this point.

Whether it's the birthers, tea-baggers, deathers, indoctrinators, or "You lie!"-ers, they have neither veiled their racial animus nor cloaked their white nationalism. The prevalence of racist images of Obama brandished by protesters juxtaposed with calls of "taking our country back" are reminiscent of D.W. Griffith's fictional America as depicted in the film Birth of a Nation.

And the pride with which this segment of society has rallied the troops around its shared sense of whiteness reveals that their skin color is the one true object of pledged allegiance and determinant of professed patriotism. [Emphasis mine.]

Those who protest so very strongly that they resent being called racist not only are racist, but have reversed the historical role of an oppressed minority: they have become the oppressed minority of "white supremacy racists" in America. As well they should be.

Enjoy that label while you can, boys. [/sarcasm]

We speak of "playing the race card." Now it's become "playing the racist card." The first step in overcoming a problem is realizing you have one. Some of us are already past that point; some may never get there. But everyone dies, so I see a solution in sight. My family is largely Hispanic--of color--so I'm encouraged that my grandchildren will grow up not thinking they're "white" and that whiteness is somehow the preferred state. I mean really, just how pure are any of us?

I know I'm an "evil librul," but I see great beauty in diversity. There's an exotic newness; a great opportunity to learn and become better informed. But I do see a great division between people. It's between the educated and the critical thinkers, and the un-educated and slavish believers by choice. There is nothing at all noble or right about being ignorant, and certainly nothing to be proud of.

Don't believe everything you're told. Listen. Question everything. Think.

That is all.

Methinks whitey doth protest too much

Remember the other day I commented about racism in the South? I lived in and around Atlanta, and DeKalb County (they pronounce it "deh-CAB"--no "L") is one of the counties that comprise the metro area.

Now we have some white guy saying "I learned about slavery in history" when all he really needed to do was fucking look around. They got monuments to the "noble ideas of the South," most of which included the notion that one man could be owned by another. Let's not forget to mention that the owning men were white, like this particular journalist, and the owned men were Obama's color. Slater also says: "Racism is a very sensitive subject, and I don’t like being associated with it." Huh. Too bad. I say get over it. Rise above it if you can. But if the shoe fits ...

Just don't go on about how offended you are because a notable former president (and other perhaps equally notable personages) thinks you are the racist you are, and isn't afraid to say it. Apparently in this new world it's appropriate to show such utter disrespect to a sitting president. And if you can't somehow keep a civil tongue (yeah, Obama: he's the ultimate uppity n*****) it's not racism--it's ideology?

I said it before: Don't even try to bullshit me. I know the pejorative definition of MARTA (the Metropolitan Atlanta Transit Authority) it's "moving Africans rapidly through Atlanta." If you don't want to be thought a racist, then shut your fucking mouth.

A good time to start would be now.

Right concludes: everyone who doesn't agree with them is a Leftist

I looked at this headline, "Left Concludes: We're All Racists"

It's the lowest common denominator, folks. I am not a "leftist" though I suppose I have liberal views on social issues. I believe in public education and that we really need a better solution for healthcare. I don't think either of those positions makes me a leftist; centrist is fairly accurate, along with about 70% of all Americans.

I believe much of the right wing is racist, particularly the Southerners. I lived in Atlanta 18 years, though I am from (and currently live in) Ohio. Don't even try to bullshit me about racism--that is at the heart of this controversy, so calling it something else is disingenuous.

No one wants to be branded a racist, though we all are. The essential difference is that some of us are actually trying not to act like racists. Personally, I try to look at people as individuals, and see beyond their "labels." Because we all have some label that can be plastered on us to diminish us in others' eyes.

My take on the Amazon Kindle fiasco

There have been several articles on Amazon.com's rather questionable removal of two novels from Kindle distribution: George Orwell's 1984 and Animal Farm. This has been covered by everyone from the New York Times, CNet News, TechDirt, All Things Digital, Ars Technica, and BoingBoing. But my point here is not to cross-reference the news.

One alternative that does strike me as having been feasible, was for Amazon to have paid the licensing fees to the copyright owner (because it's all about money, after all), then sue the errant publisher for breach of contract to recoup some of their costs. But whatever they could have done, they should have left their customers alone. This, it seems, would ultimately have been the least costly solution. And of course I define "cost" as more than the money.

But while we're talking about the Kindle, I noticed a comment on TechDirt that said something to the effect that the Kindle costs more than a netbook and is arguably less flexible. One thing is certain, though, what you do with the Kindle isn't all up to you. Not even a little bit. Amazon has never seemed evil, to me, but they're no different than any other large company: their customers are always the last ones in the food chain to get benefit. Let me suggest they should work on changing that.

This thing is a major public relations nightmare for them, but despite the irony of the pulled title (does the term "Big Brother" mean anything to you?), it won't mean a damn thing in the current "war" over copyright. Some proponents still like to argue that the copyright owner gets to decide all use of a work, and that this was theft, while most of us do think that as consumers of creative works, we still do get to decide how we will use or not use the work.

Everything created today is derivative, based on something done by someone else, also derivative. Where do we draw the line? Who deserves to be paid? How much? For how long? It's all about the money, but the real danger is not in not being paid enough, it's in not being noticed enough.

Interesting rant about Mono

I have just recently made the "jump" to Ubuntu (a Linux distribution for PCs of all sizes). First of all, it's great, and for most users, it does nearly everything you might want. That's right, for all but a few that must use Microsoft applications like Office, or that must use programs like Quicken, it has everything you need to be productive. This is especially true if all you do is surf the web, email, and maybe write a term paper or two. For these it has Firefox, Thunderbird, and Open Office. All three are very good, and I use them all. (And all are included in the Ubuntu distro download.)

Mono is a development framework based on Microsoft .NET, and has sparked a rather rabid religious war on the Linux forums. Everyone has an opinion, it seems, and folks on both sides are calling for the death and expulsion of anyone who disagrees with them. Well, maybe not literal death, but certainly expulsion. Yes, like the war between religion and atheism, Mono advocates are the atheists to the Linux "purists." The spawn of Satan that must be eliminated at all costs.

So, when I read this post discussing why Mono really isn't evil, I thought of religious wars.

My opinion of Mono is that it's arguably based on the standards that Microsoft sought when they published .NET. Steve Ballmer's idiotic comments aside (because he really is a huge, smelly asshole), if MS didn't want Mono around, they could have/should have taken steps to prohibit its development. Such as not having made the .NET CLR architecture a standard. *sigh*

Nothing will get the Linux homos more riled than something with the taint of Microsoft. Not even calling them homos will do that (and I'm smiling when I say that, fellas). Java ain't as great as everyone says it is, and there needs to be an alternative. If Mono provides the ability to develop quality software for distros like Ubuntu, then as a user I'm all for it. Shoot, being technical means I might also do some Linux/KBE development myself. Could be fun.

The final firing of Carrie Prejean

Despite the fact I can't quite pronounce her last name, overall I really don't care what happens to her. But the news is: she's been fired as Miss California. Yeah, poor girl. She was asked a controversial question, and answered it to the best of her abilities. Whatever one thinks of the quality of her "abilities" to answer questions, one comment she's made recently has my attention:

"Three weeks ago I was asked a politically charged question with a hidden personal agenda," Prejean said. "I was given a question asking for my opinion and I stated my personal belief. Immediately after the pageant, judge no. 8 began a cultural firestorm in the media ... he was trying to be self-promoting and hateful.

"On April 19 on that stage, I exercised my freedom of speech," Prejean continued, fighting back tears. "And I was punished for doing so. This should not happen in America."

Was she "punished," or was she taken to task for her beliefs? She spoke them out loud, and so therefore invited criticism, whether she wanted it or not. If I stood up and said vapid blonds from California should be shot at dawn, I would expect to be criticized for that position, because not everyone will accept it. The same goes for those who have an opinion on gay marriage. If you're against it, some will be critical of you. If you're for it, others will criticize you for that opinion. If she can't handle the pressure of defending her views, I would suggest she's not very well prepared to be Miss California, or to spout her fundamentalist views in public, either. Something about heat and kitchens comes to mind.

Poor girl. Punished for her innocent viewpoint? Since she wasn't fired for that, I doubt that's the case. As to whether this should happen in America ... well, there are a lot of things going on in America these days--even in regards to free speech--that have my panties in a bunch. Carrie Prejean needs to get in line.

And the irony that her presence in the pageant wasn't also "self-promoting"? She may have not been acting "hateful" to Perez Hilton, but I know a few gay folks who would ascribe her attitude as hateful to them. My irony meter isn't broken, but it's pegged. (I had an extra-industrial-strength model installed when GWB got elected. Even then he broke it several times. But, that's another story for another time.)

Prejean's mother, Francine, came out in defense of her daughter, telling the blog MomLogic.com that the beauty queen is "being persecuted for speaking her opinion" about gay marriage. Prejean also told Christian radio host Dr. James Dobson that Satan tried to tempt her with a question about gay marriage at the Miss USA pageant.

My only question, re: Satan and his Temptations (a really old pop-music group), is did he succeed? It would seem so, since she's now out and free to go for the really juicy XXX photos. She'll make a frigging fortune.

Fun times.

They say California is the granola state

And this article proves it. Wow. Looking at this article and all the pretty graphs and charts makes me want to:
A) laugh,
B) cry,
C) puke,
D) all of the above.

If you selected D, then you got it right. Of course it's California that's supremely fucked itself. Arnold, can you say
hasta la vista"? You should, and get as far away as you can from this meltdown of nuclear proportions.

The only question at this point is: Why didn't I buy a BMW with my home equity? If we're all going down the tubes, at least I could have driven there in style. What's another zero to a bankruptcy? (Sheesh!)

Hang on folks, this party isn't over yet.

Characteristics of Fascism: How many can you find?

Depressing, isn't it? I look at this list of Fourteen Defining Characteristics of Fascism, and I find far too many quite common in the U.S., today. (I'm not going to point them out--that's an exercise for the reader.) That we are ostensibly the "shining beacon of freedom in the world" either says something very bad about our world, or that we are NOT a shining beacon any longer. For my money, we've just become a place where freedom has gone to die. So, the terrorists HAVE won, I guess.

You know, I'd almost rather have a creationist like Ron Paul--a staunch Libertarian--than a more mainstream conventional politician, like Obama. Of course, I'm not ready to write him off, just yet.

Cory Doctorow: A DRM Dissertation

If you've been on the Internet in the past few years, you'd be hard-pressed to have not heard of Cory Doctorow. He also writes for BoingBoing, as well. This article may not be new, but it's ever so relevant. It happens to be directed at Microsoft, but Sony (and others) are also prominently mentioned.

I can only wonder if the buggy whip manufacturers association were as powerful as the music industry; we'd all be paying a buggy whip avoidance tax on every new automobile, and be paying an entire industry to exist without contributing any value whatsoever. And yes, music industry, I'm looking at you!

Hulu walking in dodo tracks

*sigh* This reminds me of my experiences when I was trying to use Pandora for my online music listening pleasure. What there was of it, anyway. Seems for their free service there's a limit on how many times you can skip a song. Funny, but after hearing the same song a half-dozen times, I sorta get tired of it and want to listen to something else. But, Pandora's great, omniscient music suppliers don't think I should have the right to limit--especially if I'm getting it free--the content I want to listen to.

Nevermind I was visiting various online music purchase sites to buy the shit they were putting up for me to listen to. No, it doesn't count that I'm actually doing what they want. It's more important to stick their dicks in my music selection. Well, I dropped Pandora instantly. Sorry, I will only play the game the way I want.

I haven't been terribly impressed with Hulu, mainly since they don't keep the content up long enough. If I want to go back and catch something, I cannot depend on finding it there. Besides, I have a 42" HDTV (no, this is not a brag), and I'd much rather watch a TV show on the big screen with surround sound. My PC's sound system might be good, but it ain't that good. So, tell me again why I can't watch what I want, when I want?

It's probably something about diluting the brand. Disney likes to release movies on DVD every ten years or so. Apparently they think their overall revenue will be best if they don't have their entire catalog available, all the time. Gee, I don't know if that's true, or not, but in this age of digital, non-scarce entertainment resources you'd think they would want to compete fulltime against the pirates, instead of never. When you limit access to your content, you don't drive up demand. Demand is what it is, and it's transitory. All you do when you keep your fans from getting to your stuff is drive them to go elsewhere.

Are you listening, Pandora? Are you watching, Hulu? Disney?

Parental prerogative

A woman objects to her adult college student daughter's choice to live in a "gender neutral" dorm room. Actually, she seems to object to Stanford's policies (the college in question) in not keeping her informed of the situation. She claims it's just "transparency," but I disagree. The dispute happened to make it into the National Review, thus "inviting" the whole damn world to weigh in on this disagreement. So I will.

Some of the comments are along the lines of "whomever pays 'the freight' gets to make the rules," and the daughter should respect her mother's wishes. Others suggest the mother should respect her daughter's choices. In fact, the mother has refused to pay the tuition for the spring term in protest of the whole event. So, the girl's parents have exercised their rights. In response, the girl has taken out a loan to cover the lost financial assistance.

I am not a parent, but I've been a son. Still am, I guess, but I was once (or twice) told that if I wanted to live under my parents' roof I had to live by their rules. OK, that sounded reasonable, so I moved out. I don't remember what I was doing (or not doing) that upset them so much, but I'm not sure it matters. I didn't like being given such an ultimatum, so I made a decision. Perhaps that's what they wanted me to do, but I was in college at the time, so it seemed a little unfair to place the additional burden on me. But then, they were the boss, and what the boss says goes.

Valuable lesson, I guess, but I don't think I learned what they wanted me to learn. Of course, I don't know what they wanted me to learn, so ... what it taught me is that everyone tends to act in their own best interests, even when they're telling you they're acting in yours. Only you can say what's good for you, but you will nonetheless experience endless bombardment from others telling you that they know what's best for you. Oh, and this doesn't stop once you're an adult, either. Of course, once you get past a certain age, you can just look at them and blink blankly, then smile and walk away. If you're young, you have to stand there and take it.

The school owes no explanation to the parents. This is true for one very simple reason: the student is an adult. I would agree that the school owes certain "transparency" in the case of a minor student, but once the student is 18 (or 21--whatever) that contract expires. It doesn't matter who is paying for what--the deal is between the provider and the beneficiary. The school, though it receives the funds, is not the direct beneficiary, the student is. Though the school may provide additional assistance when dealing with multiple sources of tuition (such as billing the parents directly, etc.) it owes no special treatment.

So, this issue is purely between the daughter and the parents--or parent, as the case may be. Of course the girl's mother is fully justified in withdrawing her financial support. Can't argue with that. It always was voluntary. You don't owe your children squat. Well, some might argue with that, because as parents you sort of have an obligation to provide for your children. That is, until they become adults and you can terminate the obligation.

So, should the parents' cultural differences be enforced on the child in this manner? They're treating her like a disobedient child. She may be irresponsible and childish (the child), but she is clearly an adult. They should treat her like an adult. So ... I would argue that if there are/were conditions on their periodic gifts of tuition assistance, then those should have been made transparently aware at the time they were initially offered. I don't know that they weren't, so I won't debate this. But like everything, the door of transparency swings both ways. But let's assume it wasn't made clear, because if it had been, the disagreement would have taken on a somewhat different tone. If the daughter broke the contract, then the breaking of the agreement becomes the issue. And it's a legitimate issue, as well.

But, the issue has become that the mother doesn't like the co-ed dorm arrangement, and is expressing her displeasure by withdrawing her support. Her daughter has a different cultural viewpoint. One might say she has a more "modern" perspective. Certainly she feels competent to handle herself in a dorm room where there might be guys. While this wouldn't have happened when I went to school, I don't see a problem. Things have changed.

So, it comes down to the conservative mother's objection to her more liberal daughter's "choice" of lifestyle. Methinks there are myriad ways they don't get along, and this is just the latest manifestation of that dispute. Frankly, I'm surprised the financial arrangement has lasted as long as it has. I mean, surely the girl's mother has known of her daughter's liberal leanings, right? Why choose to enforce them, now? What's the lesson she wants to impart, now, one term away from graduation?

It's an immature hissy fit, plain and simple. She's taking the money away for no other reason than because she can, and completely overlooking the bigger picture. You love someone? Then decide if you're in for the long haul, or not. If not, then the faster you get the hell out, the better. If you're in, then don't put limits on what that love entails. There are legitimate reasons for discontinuing financial support, but an objection to what is a very temporary and not-dangerous situation is not one of them. Of course I may have oversimplified, but that's my opinion.

It's all about control, and the distinctly bad feeling you get once you realize you've lost it. Once again, I'd have to wonder how they got to this point without this having happened. But I do remember I was about 21 or 22 when I "got the message." If this child is the oldest (and I believe she is) then this has been a learning experience for everyone. It's just a shame that the parents weren't able to prove that they were the bigger people by biting back their disappointment and addressing this disagreement in some other, less disruptive manner. That the National Review picked this up--well, this is just fodder for their whole "the liberals are destroying our country" diatribe. It sells magazines, and the "red staters" want to hear about it.

But blame the parents. They are the ones that raised their daughter to be an independent thinker with the ability and the inclination to make her own decisions. If they'd wanted a little conservative automaton, they should have made sure that's what they were teaching her to be. But they wanted their daughter to think for herself. So now, who's to blame when she does?

They should be proud.

Good thing I'm a bit more open-minded

These "words of wisdom" are from Pat Robertson. [VIDEO]

I guess the gauntlet has been tossed down rather unequivocally.

... when people listen to Jenny, children die. It's really that simple.

The title above is a quote from one of my favorite medical blogs, Whitecoat Underground. PalMD is very informative, so give him a look. He also writes for Science-based Medicine, also very good.

Whitecoattales suggests we contact Oprah about her monumentally bad idea of giving Jenny McCarthy a television venue for mindless/braindead rantings. So I put my two cents in. Let her know the mistake she is making.

I've asked this question before: If these anti-vaxxers don't trust medical science and scientists, then in order to be satisfied, whom do they think will do the research to come up with the "safe" vaccines they say they will support? How will they know when these "safe" vaccines are developed? How will they know they work? Where will the money come from to fund this all-important research? (Hey, Jim C.--how about coughing up a few hundred million for this? Sorta put your money where your mouth is, you ignorant fuck.) And lastly, how many children have to suffer in the meantime? She thinks this suffering is the "price we have to pay." Any of you have small children? Do you think this is a reasonable price?

Weigh in!

Pot, meet kettle

Today must be a really good day for ironies. Yes, here's a hedge fund manager complaining that Obama is abusing his power. While he may have a point about only doing his job, this economic climate is not politically the time and place to take a hard line. We're all taking it in the shorts, a little. It's time to bend over, methinks.

It'll only hurt a little. I promise.

Afghanistan's only pig quarantined in flu fear

No this did not come from TheOnion.

I guess they're trying to protect the pig from us humans. Indeed.

Memories of Influenza

I think I've had the flu badly only twice in my life. I think. My mother tells about the time I was sick as an 18-month-old child and they had to hospitalize me in isolation. I don't remember anything about it, but I think it rather significantly traumatized me. Today I think they would allow your mother to be with you. That's the part she talks about, because that's the part she would be most traumatized about. I've only come away with abandonment issues and a strange affinity for women in uniform. Heh.

In 1980 when I was 25 I got the flu. I remember that episode quite well. I was really sick for a good two weeks. If it weren't for liquid Sudafed and a bottle of port I had stashed under the sink, I'm not sure how I would have gotten by. The Sudafed helped me breathe, and the alcohol helped me sleep.

Actually, my girlfriend had gotten sick with it, first. I remember going out to buy a humidifier and medicine about four hours before I came down with it. I'm sure I spread my bugs to the people I came into contact with, but what could I do?

I think when I was sick at Christmas in 1996 was also a flu bug, but since we (my girlfriend of the time) were only sick about a week, I don't count that among the bad ones. Yeah, it was no fun being stuck sick in a dreary apartment in Atlanta. No tree, only a few presents, and both of us hacking and coughing.

I didn't say my memories were fond. Influenza can suck out loud. It can kill you, too. I'm just lucky I was young and pretty healthy in 1980, because that one was pretty damn bad. I googled for references to a 1980 flu outbreak, but found nothing. There was a swine flu scare in 1976, but it's hard to say what strain the bug in 1980 was.

Well, I don't know where I'm going with this post. I just thought I'd write about what's going on in the "influenza epidemic/pandemic" news, these days. Just in case I get sick and can't write about it, later.

Murder "works" too, but we still don't allow it

I'm not surprised to hear supreme wingnut Rush Limbaugh trying to justify the U.S.'s illegal torture of prisoners, by trying to "prove" that it works. That, of course, is completely beside the point. There have to be higher standards than the ones our "enemies" have. Otherwise, we're no different from them, and deserve no better. Maybe that's true, but I'd like to think it isn't. If we're just as evil as those who oppose us, then who's to say who should win?

Of course, if you're not doing anything wrong ...

The wingnuts are upset the government is monitoring them as if they were terrorists. Gosh.

Don't worry, wingnut extremists. If you're not doing anything wrong, you have nothing to worry about. After all, that's what y'all told us when you approved of warrantless wiretapping.

Yeah. Suck it.

What we suspected all along ...

Homophobe = secretly gay.

Only the homophobic men showed an increase in penile erection to male homosexual stimuli.

Makes sense, though. Why else would gay men upset them so much? Now we know.

Captain Obvious does a study

Here's the newsflash: When confronted with an expert's advice, people don't think for themselves.

Wait a minute! There's absolutely nothing valuable about that conclusion. The study in question suggests that people shouldn't simply follow the advice of 'experts,' but think for themselves. Honestly, I have enough other things to think about--I can't be an expert on everything.

I got into trouble with an atheist blogger because I likened one's 'belief' in the value of expert science (in situations where you are not an expert) to a type of faith. Since I don't know the science, I have to have faith that those who do, really do know what the flop they're talking about. Like the engineering behind that bridge I'm about to cross. I don't know the science that led to the final design, but I really have to trust that the engineer who designed it knew what he was doing. That was his job: to know the science behind the strength of concrete and steel, and how to calculate forces appropriately (I once took mechanics in college, but the TA had such a horrible accent I don't think I learned anything other than 'bim' means 'beam'). My job is to know how to design and build enterprise computer systems. It's non-trivial, though cars don't fall in the river if I'm wrong.

But I digress.

The blogger who argued with me insisted that since she could pursue the science and understand it, she didn't have to take it all on faith. I suppose it was an artifact of her deconversion that caused such an aversion to my use of the 'faith' term, because even though I understand science and the scientific method, I don't understand most of the stuff necessary to actually render a scientifically meaningful decision on anything. Instead, I tell myself the experts know. I choose to believe them. Yes, it's to my peril if they're wrong. But what are my alternatives?

The most interesting part of the blog post I cite is a comment that happens to be a quote from Kant. To paraphrase: Thinking is hard. People would rather not do it, and if they avoid doing it long enough the lose the ability to think, altogether. It's easier to let someone else tell us what to do. YMMV.

That the study discussed financial experts seems almost beside the point. It's not irrelevant, but whenever someone is giving you advice, particularly if the advice 1) sounds too good to be true, 2) portents dire consequences if you fail to act, or 3) doesn't seem to make sense on the surface, run like hell.

Captain Obvious would tell you that everyone is trying to sell you something, so the only questions you have to answer are: who wins, and who loses. And if you're smart, you have to answer those questions.

iTunes: Now with more money-grubbing goodness

Yeah, the news is talking about a planned price increase on iTunes, where some songs will soon cost $1.29, instead of $.99. I don't shop iTunes, so it doesn't directly affect me.

I still haven't figured out why some tracks on Amazon.com's MP3 downloads cost $.89 and some cost $.99. Their cost to distribute is exactly the same. Either you make money at $.89, or you don't. I'm guessing that they do make money. But I over-simplify, because I'm not including the greedy record company's interests in this equation. So, how is it that the record company gets to set prices, anyway?

Sure, there's a price point that maximizes profits, but I really doubt they've found it because of all the wailing and gnashing of teeth going on in the recording industry. They continue to complain that piracy and P2P are destroying their business, but yet whenever they have a chance to legitimately sell something at a price someone is willing to pay (despite being able to obtain the content for free), they insist on punishing their best customers by raising prices.

If it was really true that you could make more money on the popular tracks by raising your prices, then you really should raise your prices. Keep raising them until your sales maximize. Alternatively, if you raise prices and your revenue drops off, let me suggest you might want to lower them. Of course, here we are talking a non-scarce commodity--MP3 digital music. With this, the only reason to ever raise prices is greed. That's it.

I don't know why iTunes (run by Apple, in case you've been living under a rock) is raising prices on some songs, other than both they and the record companies are simply greedy and want to suck as much out of their customers as possible. That's OK, as long as you don't care if I don't play along.

The death of feminism?

Catchy title, but not exactly the point of this story. I've been sorta wondering how the last 30+ years of feminism has been transformed and applied to the girls of today. Badly, it seems. But, here's what I believe:

Feminism at its best offered women - and men for that matter - the idea that anyone should be able to achieve what she wants regardless of gender, and that loving and successful domestic relationships could consist of two equal partners.

But yet girls today, the same ones who think Rhianna got "what she deserved" from Chris Brown (look it up if you care) are only measuring their worth--their value--based on their ability to attract and keep a boy. It's not about being the best YOU can be, it's about being the best as seen by someone else. A stupid boy, or as the case may be, a stupid man.

This is what's wrong with Twilight, incidentally. The girl who is involved with the hot young vampire boy has no real identity outside of how she looks in his eyes. Whatever he wants her to be--she will be. If this is what we're passing off as valid entertainment for teenage girls (and teenage boys, as well) then we need to examine our motives. I almost said "reexamine" but I'm guessing that first inspection never took place.

In my stories, my heroines won't be perfect, but they won't define themselves in terms of others. And my heroes won't expect any heroine worth her salt to willingly subjugate herself just to be more of what he might want. Personally, I'd much rather have a partner who is the biggest person she can be. Challenge me, make me work for it. You see, I want to grow, as well. So I really do say "bring it on." I want your best stuff, because you deserve my best stuff.

Target rich environment

Gosh, where to start? Now we read that some of the people being held at Guantanamo are innocent. I remember ranting about this years ago, during the 2004 2006 election frenzy, when we were subjected to all those "terrorists have no rights" commercials.

Terrorists have no rights? How about innocent civilians? Oh, but I can hear the argument, now. "Wrong place; wrong time. You must be guilty of something." Put that with the old adage, "if you're not doing anything wrong, you have nothing to worry about." You can see how hollow that all sounds. It's been very clear to me for a long time that this problem, among many, is the reason we have so many laws to protect our rights under the law. We're already mired deeply in the morass of abuse of police power. When it's illegal to videotape the police, and when news reporters are no longer hanging around asking questions, who will oversee their actions? It has nothing to do with whether you're innocent, or not, but whether some cop doesn't like you.

It's very sad.

PSA: Financial article from 1999 not-so-strangely prophetic

Back in 1999 Congress passed landmark legislation that paved the way for the financial collapse of today. Back then they lauded this effort as paving the way to the 21st century. Little did they know (but they should have known) that the 21st century they were paving would be one of joblessness, eviction and foreclosure, cities shutting down whole neighborhoods, and fucking Wall Street banksters (portmanteau word from "bankers" and "gangsters," in the Al Capone sense of the word) laughing at us while we drown in insurmountable debt.

Here's the money quote FTA:

''I think we will look back in 10 years' time and say we should not have done this but we did because we forgot the lessons of the past, and that that which is true in the 1930's is true in 2010,'' said Senator Byron L. Dorgan, Democrat of North Dakota. ''I wasn't around during the 1930's or the debate over Glass-Steagall. But I was here in the early 1980's when it was decided to allow the expansion of savings and loans. We have now decided in the name of modernization to forget the lessons of the past, of safety and of soundness.'' [emphasis mine]

Nuff said. Or maybe not.

Cool object lesson in the benefits of Open Source

Without getting into a discussion about how Open Source is funded and developed (it must be worth something to someone, or it would have died by now), here is a short article about the benefits that can be derived from using a tool where the source code is freely available. Yeah, it's technical and probably not of much interest to non-programming types, but it does hint at the difference in motivation between your average JBoss developer and your average Windows developer. Well, maybe not for the average developer ... but you get the idea.

WotD: PENDEJO

Pronounced pen-day-ho. Apparently when you google it all you get are references to the Daily Show's Dora the Explorer segment. Hang around until almost the end of the video.

I want to clear up the confusion. Pendejo is the Spanish equivalent to calling someone a fuckwad. My spouse's Spanish-English dictionary (dead tree copy, so you know it's authoritative) defines it as "pubic hair," or imbecile, idiot, asshole, etc.

Carry on.

PI answer to stem cell research disagreement

This should take care of the problem. In more ways than one ...

Chuck Norris advocating sedition?

The only people who would actively advocate an "armed insurrection" are those who 1) have nothing to lose, 2) just like killing and maiming, or 3) are nuts. Mr. Norris probably doesn't fit the first category, and may fit the second. He certainly seems to be freaking nuts, though.

Here's the sentiment from the blog post, and I agree:

The burning question we all face is what the Obama administration will do to cope with those that promote violence and armed insurrection against our own country. We don’t need a “civil war” or any other type of violence that disembodies our Constitution, the Rule of Law, and the Bill of Rights. Those who believe that violence is the only way to display their dissatisfaction with he Obama administration are committing treason - in my opinion - and I don’t seem to be the only one that share this belief.

I don't want to live in the Fascist States of What-Once-Was-America. There's a lot wrong, right now, and I'm not convinced this massive bailout is the right thing to do, but taking up guns to overthrow the government doesn't sound like a good idea. We need less polarization, not more.

I think he'd better watch it. He could be the first martyr of the failed wingnut "revolution." Most Americans are sheep, and I can say "baah" as well as anyone. It's called protective coloration.

What's the deal with A.I.G.? Well, here it is

From the New York Times Business pages: "Desperately Protecting A.I.G.'s House of Cards." I've read this type of analysis before, and am satisfied this is the case. They took advantage of the lack of regulation and let their greed overcommit financial resources HUGELY. Yeah, CDSs should have been treated just like conventional insurance--requiring capital to be set aside against losses. But no, they sold CDSs (credit default swaps--"insurance" on investments) like drunken sailors. Bad metaphor, I know. They abused A.I.G.'s triple-A rating and sucked it dry.

The US taxpayers are now paying to clean up the mess, and all this while we're going down with the ship. Fun stuff.

I can haz integrative journalism?

While on the subject of NCCAM and Senator Tom Harkin, I found this rather funny blog post by The Tufted Titmouse. It reminds me of the Tinkerbell Effect, but indeed, why not mix traditional journalism with creative writing. Consensual reality.

Ignorance is strength
-- George Orwell, 1984

I mean, just look at all those fundies. They're all clapping like mad.

Yeah, I have time on my hands today.

Is time an illusion?

I remember when I posted that time was immutable, but distance was subjective? Well, it seems time might be the illusory aspect. I wish they'd make up their minds. Of course, this idea opens up a few doors in my "other" time travel story. Here is the money quote FTA:

It is not reality that has a time flow, but our very approximate knowledge of reality. Time is the effect of our ignorance

What we perceive of reality is what gets represented as time; time doesn't actually exist. Kewl. (Dude, don't bogart that joint.)

"Clapping for Tinkerbell"

Sure. Anything can happen if you believe in it enough, right? Y'all go on clapping.

Dude, it could happen, you don't know.

Update: AKA "The Tinkerbell Effect" (see, I knew it was real!!)

CNBC: House of Cards

This documentary (hosted on Hulu) will cost you 1:31:10 of your time to watch, but I consider it essential for insight into the current economic crisis.

I would clarify Greenspan's assessment, slightly. The aspect of human nature that caused this and will no doubt cause the next crisis is greed. Pure, unadulterated greed.

I hope you all have kept your jobs and your houses.

Americans are so pathetic

There has been a "controversy" in the news lately. Facebook, claiming membership of something like 150 million members (a shitload of people), recently posted changes to their terms of service. People didn't like the changes, claiming Facebook was amending their rights (Facebook's rights) to perpetual free license and control of all user content. By all content we mean everything, and by perpetual we mean forever.

Whether that's what the weenies at Facebook intended, or not, that's the gist of what I took away when I read the terms. Frankly, I hadn't read the terms before I joined Facebook, so I was a lazy slug just like everyone else. But it seemed clear to me: Facebook wants the right to do whatever they want with your stuff. Forever. No, I don't know why.

Oddly enough (and I say oddly because, like, who really gives a shit about Facebook's terms?) the changes caused quite a stir in the online community. People were upset because they thought they retained ownership and control of their own content, and that Facebook was just a platform for hosting it. Not too much unlike several other services available on teh Internets.

Very well. Protest their change in terms. But if you don't like the fact Facebook is a money-grubbing corporation with their own interests (that don't take your interests into account) you really have little recourse but to leave Facebook. But, no. Instead I get invitations to join the "100,000,000 Against Facebook Owning Its User's Photos!" group. Ignoring the breathless exclamation point, the fool who started this group doesn't even know the difference between LOSING and LOOSING. It's simply fail all the way.

Americans are so pathetic. They aren't willing to give up anything to support their supposed beliefs. Do you really think if you join this group Facebook is going to listen to you? Get a grip, they're laughing at you! You're like a five-year-old stamping her feet to complain about being sent to her room without dessert. Grow up. If you don't like the new terms of service at Face-fucking-book, then terminate your membership. Go somewhere else. You're not impressing anyone with your silly little protest group. Least of all, not me.

Incidentally, this is why everyone in the world hates Americans. We think we're entitled to everything, but we're not willing to give up anything to get the things we say are important. The only thing Facebook will understand and respect is numbers, and if you don't like Facebook, vote with your feet (or, for the brain-impaired: leave the service) or shut the fuck up and get back in line.

That is all.

I have to say it: Holy Shit

Ahem. Remember when we used to say "a billion here and a billion there, and pretty soon you're talking REAL money"? Flock that. The new cool word starts with a T.

Check out this rather informative Flash animation at the Guardian UK. Dog love him, Obama's $800-some-odd-billion incentive/relief/bailout package won't even cover one day's interest on the real debt.

We're flocked, folks. Buy a big gun, and don't let anyone in your door waving "official" papers. "Possession is nine-tenths" will be the new watch word. Of course, when they shut off the gas and power you'll have to start chopping up the furniture (or the neighbors, or something).

Irony: When your credit card company calls and asks if their interest rate is "competitive enough." Funny, but zero is competitive enough for the moment. (I got one of those temporary introductory rate deals.) Yeah, for the moment. I'll let you know.

Really excellent posts on science and religion

Read the Coyne article in the New Republic. Then read PZ Myers' commentary on Coyne.

As scientists we have to think about the incompatibility between religious belief and the reason of science. For me, the money quote comes from Richard Feynman:

"Science is a way of trying not to fool yourself. The first principle is that you must not fool yourself, and you are the easiest person to fool."

One comment I've heard about atheists is that they just won't shut up. That they're just too pushy, loud, disrespectful, and obnoxious. They are vocal, certainly, but their weapons are "only" words that espouse ideas. Surely one's faith isn't shaken by ideas, is it? Or is it? Mine was.

Self inspection is hard, and I'm no exception. But it's clear, the scales eventually have to fall from our eyes, or we fall short of being true scientists. Well, that's my story and I'm sticking with it.

This is all just food for thought in a hungry world. Enjoy.

Fascinating article on religion and the human brain

I found this article on SuicideGirls.com, a place most would probably not associate with such scholarly things. The article discusses the connection religion has to our more primitive "primal" brains. HOWEVER, before you all go off on me for "being unfair to religion," please go read the article.

I saw the idea of fictive kin being quite apropos to my story. My native people have the notion of having "brothers" and "sisters" who are not blood kin to them. It's their way of establishing extended trust relationships with others--specifically those who are not their true brothers and sisters. I have looked at it from the "since I call you brother you know I would trust you with my life; you can trust me with yours." Explicitly. I may be naive, but it seemed important for them to establish these kinds of strong bonds with others as a means of enhancing everyone's own chances for survival. From the Evolution of Religion article, this idea is borne out in the role that religion (or more accurately, religious organizations) play in our lives, and more to the point: in our psyches.

I'm not commenting on whether religion is valuable or appropriate. Clearly, since so many people believe it to be important, it must provide some kind of benefit. The authors seem to imply that over time we may "grow out of" this attraction to religion, but until our "smart brains" totally win out over our "primal brains" this cannot happen. I'm guessing it will not happen. My only wish is that the message of many religions will be changed to one more rationally based. I suspect my wish is in vain.

Back to the philosophies of my fictional native people: they don't have a "religion," as such. They have an amorphous "mother earth spirit"--essentially a pagan belief in the natural world. Their god (if you could call their earth spirit a god) confers judgment on all creatures, and this belief proscribe them from deciding the fate of anyone. If you murder someone, they would not murder you. To do so would be to judge, and judging is only allowed by their earth spirit. They would exile you from their midst--cut you from the herd, as it were--but only their earth spirit can decide whether you live or die. Or how.

I will have to think about the role religion plays in the forming of fictive kin--communities of support acting like tribes/extended families. Clearly, having more ritualized religious practices for my natives feels better than not having them, but is it really true they would have come to the conclusion that sacrifices are necessary to appease their god? (You might ask how I came to this conclusion, seeing as how it seems unrelated to religious rituals, in general. Keep reading.)

I believe religions are all about control. The rituals of belief only exist to homogenize the adherents. In other words: monkey see; monkey do. In crowds, we feel much better when we're doing what everyone else is doing, regardless of whether we know it's right, or not. I know this reaction to be true. So, this means religious ritual is necessary to make everyone feel better about who they are and where they are. The clergy, therefore, has a very important and exalted position. They get to interpret the gods for the masses, and establish (and lead) the various rituals in supplication to the gods. Our primitive brains know that in order to coerce the gods to act on our behalf, we either need to 1) do something they like, or 2) show how much we are willing to give up for them. Either way, we're extending them a lot of power, and power is cool. We're only doing what we would want our worshipers to do for us. Like I said: power is cool.

All this alludes to the uniquely human ability to "see" the purposes and motivations of others. It's what causes us to assign anthropomorphic qualities to the natural world. Hurricanes probably do not have purpose; by extension, neither does the universe. IMHO, anyway. It's because we assume nature has a reason that we're mystified when we can't fathom it. This hole in our understanding has historically been so huge as to fit the proverbial truck. A gap that large is just begging to be filled, and we do: with religion.

For my natives, the clan leaders would probably seek to tie into the religion, and therefore the second most powerful person in the clan would be the high priest. That I haven't invented the role of high priest seems to be an oversight. I don't want it there. I have the role of "philosopher-historian" which is a surrogate for the priest, but frankly I just didn't want religion to be an important part of the world of my natives. If you have to give them a religion, they would be Taoists. Simplicity. Flow. Patience. I really gave them a rather evolved perspective, but I reasoned it to stem from their long-time relationship to the technological "pale-skins." The native people don't believe the world has a purpose--it just is. They don't have science (and they don't want it), but they know science exists and that it explains many things. It's just that it explains the things they don't care about--that don't matter to them. Whether that's right or wrong, ultimately ... well, that's what the story is about (at least partly).

Unsurprising, but still disappointing

Congratulations President Obama. I voted for you, so I'm glad you're finally in office. Yes, of course I want you to succeed--I want America to succeed--especially since I'm handcuffed to the American Dream. If the economy collapses, I lose my job, can't pay the bills, get thrown out on the street, can't buy gasoline, can't buy food, and have to resort to less polite means to survive (and probably get toasted in the process) ... I will be quite unhappy about the whole thing.

But I came across this statement from Rush Limbaugh. He must be smoking something powerful, because he's completely lost touch with reality. "Liberalism," as he puts it, is no more to blame for our present situation than is "conservatism." The former Republican administration was less conservative than even the most liberal Democratic administration we've ever had. That is, if you count Federal spending. No so-called "liberal" government could get away with spending half a trillion dollars on social programs (particularly money we don't have). Social programs simply can't inspire the kind of fear that motivated and enabled the government to lose its head. Trust me. Limbaugh would lose his lunch if Obama were to ask for $100B in new dollars for education--not that Obama could get that past Congress without a fight. But Limbaugh would be OK with spending the same money to lay Afghanistan to waste. If he's the measure, "conservatism" is simply bat-shit craziness. I'm pretty sure it's not, so therefore he's just bat-shit crazy.

Many of us have had to shut up and put up over the problems of the Bush administration. Perhaps Limbaugh should do the same. But then, he's still entitled to his opinion. And we all know what opinions are ...

"Origin" Virgin blogging his reading of Darwin

This is interesting. An evolutionary biologist is reading Charles Darwin's Origin of Species and blogging about it as he reads. The contents of the book are in the public domain and you may find them online, here. Since I am a skeptic and continually thirst for more knowledge, I will do my utmost to read along with Dr. John Whitfield, to see, so to speak, what all the furor is about. And to gain knowledge, too.

So come along if you're interested. No matter what your beliefs, this should be fascinating.

Not news: We're gonna need a bigger basket

With apologies to this movie. That is all.

Watch ring found in Ming Dynasty tomb

In the news this week is the mention of a Swiss-made watch ring (a watch integrated into a ring, or rather, a watch worn as you would wear a ring) found in a 400-year-old Chinese tomb. Problem is, "[l]ocal experts say they are confused as they believe the tomb had been undisturbed since it was created during the Ming dynasty 400 years ago."

So, has someone traveled back in time, or what? That an archaeologist joked about it only serves to confuse the gullible even more.

I know the answer, and of course it's no. The watch ring is old, and it's very likely someone was in the tomb sometime in the past 100 years. Probably closer to then as opposed to now. It seems fairly safe to assume that unless you have personally watched the tomb entrance every moment for the past 100 years, or so, and you can be certain no one has entered or exited, that some time traveler has NOT left his/her ring in the tomb. Actually, more than a fairly safe assumption.

But this story does make good fodder for a D20 Modern Time Travel campaign episode. After we visit the Nazis during WWII, and maybe visit the space station (on the far side of the moon) back in 1270 (I think that's when it was).

Yes, I'm a geek and I still play RPGs, at my age. I never want to think older than 25, and so far, I'm winning.

"Teach the Strengths and Weaknesses of Evolution?"

First of all, hat tip to Ed Brayton and his Dispatches from the Culture Wars blog. In reference to the State of Texas school board's position on the theory of evolution:

I have to wonder--is it appropriate to teach the "strengths and weaknesses of evolution" to high school students? Truly? Really? The finer points of the theory of evolution are appropriate for graduate school courses in biology. Can a high school student understand and appreciate where the current theory is, in terms that make sense given their really limited exposure? In a word, no.

So, I'm trying to parse this statement in a way that makes sense. Of course, I know the agenda behind it, and it's really a thinly veiled attempt to insert Christian faith/belief into the science curriculum. A place, I might add, where it firmly must not be. I wouldn't want Islamic faith taught as science, either.

I am a rationalist. My "faith" is not based on superstitions or stories. The theory of evolution has been researched and experimented against by thousands of scientists for more than 100 years. It's not a faith, and it does stand up to rational, scientific scrutiny. The same scrutiny and rigor that, for example, sent us to the moon. A scientist continually tries to prove that they're wrong. The only way to verify some hypothesis is to build experiments that are intended to disprove it. Because only when an hypothesis stands up to repeated, stringent attempts to disprove it, does it become a scientific theory. Theories change as we learn more, but no one would suggest that not knowing everything would, in fact, mean a theory is weak.

We do not know everything; we probably never will. Knowledge isn't a destination; it's a journey. As for how life began, how the universe began, what caused it all ... I don't know the answers, and I'm all right not knowing. If someone wants to believe that a supernatural god did all this (and we call this faith), then that's OK with me. It's just an hypothesis that, unfortunately, hasn't really been tested. We can infer its validity in the face of unknowns, but we have not tested this idea against the physical universe. For all I know it could be true, but my intuition tells me it's not.

There doesn't have to be a reason for all this--everything. That it is, is good enough for me. Because the real question is: what are you going to do with what you have? The meaning of life is to see it perpetuated, and that is all. We have minds that thirst for the answers, so in addition to perpetuating our life in this universe, we also explore the nature of the reality we sense. Perfectly OK. Not a waste of time.

I'd suggest if you've been sitting around waiting for the afterlife that you get up off your ass and get busy. You ain't got eternity to accomplish something. There's no time like now; no one better than you. Or me.

I was right about Palin, and more

This is schadenfreude, pure and simple. Reports now are that Palin was not just a "maverick" but a loose cannon on the deck of the McCain campaign. Apparently she was very irresponsible, initially very ignorant, and left Arizona in a 12-vehicle motorcade accompanied by 18 family members. McCain drove himself home, Lindsay Grahan riding shotgun. To be fair, she was 2,500 miles from home, but we still need to ask about her expentidures for clothes. Well, we don't need to ask, but I sure am glad she's not the vice president.

Oh, and what about Ralph Nader's comment about "Obama needs to decide whether he'll be Uncle Sam or Uncle Tom"? Seems the President has more choices than that, but what an awful thing to say. What's worse, he tried to defend the statement. Talk about jumping the shark ... it's just sad.

Finally, I have to say that if McCain hadn't chosen Palin, and if we'd had a chance to see the real man during the campaign, then my choice would have been made much more difficult. I think Obama will do well as president, particularly since he will very obviously be a huge contrast to the last 8 years. A Democratic Congress isn't necessarily a good thing, and for the same reasons the Republican Congress wasn't good. I do want them to work together to do right, but I am also aware that the term "Congress doing right" is almost an oxymoron.

Oh well, I must be a closet optimist, after all.

Laws against sin

I passed by this article on same-sex marriage. In the article they quoted one woman as stating "same sex marriage is a sin."

Here is my question, since the woman was obviously against permitting it. Should our law attempt to legislate morality? Should there be a law against sinful behavior? Specifically, this kind of behavior.

There are laws against committing murder, for example. Few, even the godless, would argue that murder should be permitted. I'd think the answer to this should be obvious: murder affects others in a profound way. It disrupts their lives, etc., and I agree murder shouldn't be permitted. We've had laws banning strong drink, but they were controversial at best. Adultery isn't illegal, and most states with sodomy laws have repealed them mostly because us straight folk wanted to engage in that behavior without fear of being arrested.

I've been trying to go down the list of "sins" in the Ten Commandments, but can't find too many that are against the law. Except murder. And perjury, which I believe is the false witness injunction.

Even if you believe same-sex marriage is a sin, is that reason enough to make it illegal? There are lots of "sins" out there, but our system of laws tends not to recognize them. Reason being, one man's sin is another man's hobby. I'm not saying same-sex marriage is a hobby, and I'll agree some would find it sinful, but is it a good candidate for legislating?

I've already put my two cents in on this subject. My posts said nothing at all about how I feel about the behavior of gays, but just for the record: I say live and let live. To each their own. I play Dungeons and Dragons, too. Some would find that sinful, but thankfully it's still not against the law.

Lastly, I saw this quote: "We've made bad selections as presidents but survived as a nation. But if we move down the path towards the dissolution of marriage we cannot divorce ourselves from the consequences of that." Correct me if I'm wrong, but allowing same-sex couples to marry doesn't dissolve marriage, it extends it. Of course, they aren't saying exactly what the consequences would be, and in what way they would be irrevocable. I suppose that's just as well.

We voted today, early

We waited in line at Veterans Memorial in downtown Columbus, Ohio over 4 hours this afternoon to vote. Lines wrapped all the way down the side of the building, and even longer inside the building itself. It's hard to judge, but I'd say there were minimally a few thousand people in line continuously from the time we arrived until about 5:30 when we finally finished voting. The line's end had just entered the building as we walked out.

The demographics of the voters was by far the most interesting aspect. I would not be exaggerating to say 80% were black, with the remainder comprising Somalians, college students, and just plain "white" folks. More women than men, too. If most of these people were voting for Obama (and I believe they were, since only Obama volunteers were on hand and everyone carried Obama pamphlets), my humble estimate is that McCain doesn't stand a chance. At least in Ohio. This time around, most Americans are voting, and this is a very good thing. Republicans probably aren't feeling so good about it, but they had their chance and they flat-out blew it.

My wife says this is history being made. Though I suppose the election could still be stolen, from what I saw I sincerely doubt it

But this means, more than ever, no matter who you support--get out and VOTE!

Christian charity refuses gift from gamers

I caught this and thought I should comment. Perhaps I should also mention that it's been noticed by some prominent non-Christian bloggers, too. Seems there is something possibly worse than being an atheist (from a Christian perspective).

The Christian Children's Fund was the late Gary Gygax's favorite charity (he was the father of the RPG), so the folks at GenCon Indianapolis wanted them to be the sponsored charity for a charity auction to be held at the event. Well, the CCF refused, citing the patent evil of Dungeons and Dragons, and gave up over $17,000 that the gamers raised. Fisher House Foundation became the charity, instead.

And we thought all this DnD "Satan worship" crap died off in the 1980's. Seems some folks continue to live in a fantasy world, but this time they aren't gamers. If you've heard of the "no true Scotsman" argument, it would seem to apply. All you Christian gamers are definitely going to hell! Real Christians have said so.

I don't really want to insult anyone who professes to be Christian and games. And of course not all Christians agree on everything. Avoiding the argument of who is right and who is wrong, for a moment, it still does occur to me that within the huge sphere of beliefs we find in this world, the chance that there's one and only one right "way" seems ... rather improbable. My god has a sense of humor, and is tolerant, kind, and runs a level 60 demigod in my fortnightly heroes game. He and Ra get along famously.

Never ceases to amaze me ...

... How people can condone graphic violence but yet find sex unacceptable. And I'm looking at you, Utah!

My argument has always been that our naked bodies and sexual activity are both very natural (as it turns out, sex is even mostly necessary). These things should not be considered shameful or "bad." Sex should be framed as adult activity that requires responsibility, but in that light it's not much different from driving a car. You get to do both at about the same age, too. That's no real coincidence.

Sure, sex can involve seamy things, but mostly these are violence and degradation. Between consenting adults, I can't think of much (outside of violence, etc.) that should bother anyone. But that's me. Sex does not pull us down a hole (heh) to the Dark Side. Trust me. I've been married twice, and I can say with certainty that sex with my wife (both of them, but not at the same time) does no harm to either of us. Frankly, it's quite enjoyable.

So what's the deal? I'd like to hear an argument from someone for why sex should be banned (as in the movie theater example cited here), but violence is OK. Violence is not OK, and we should shun it with all the vim and vigor with which we seem to shun sex. Well, at least some of us shun sex ... (don't look away, Utah, this post's for YOU!)

I'm going to say it, but many will disagree with me. It's all about control. Religion, that is. They talk about not loving violence, abhorring it, detesting it, etc., but that's only violence directed at them. If they can get you to wreak violence on some other group, in their name, well then, that's different. But it's not different.

I can watch violence in popular entertainment almost as well as most people. It's all made up--not real--so altogether it has less impact. But I'm an adult and I know the difference between reality and fantasy, and between right and wrong, as well. Our children don't know these things, though, and they get confused. Arguably, that's a good reason for carefully monitoring the amount of exposure they get to things sexual, as well, but we really don't have an equal standard, here, do we? Well, that's my assertion, anyway.

YMMV.

I missed it last night, but here it is

It's worth listening to, perhaps even if you don't support Obama. We really need an injection of hope, and not just dire warnings and fear-mongering. We all have things we fear, and these times are becoming more and more uncertain, daily. But the best medicine for fear is hope. Roosevelt (FDR) knew that, and he was a strong voice during two times of great uncertainty.

I'm not saying; I'm just saying ...

Hat tip to ERV.

When you believe, but don't know why you believe

I caught this gem on Ed Brayton's blog, Dispatches from the Culture Wars. It's a clip from Fox News interviewing "Joe the Plumber" about his "statement" that electing Obama would mean the death of Israel.

The man is nothing but a parrot spouting words he doesn't understand. He believes, or so he says, but has no clue at all why he believes.

Here are some logical steps one could take to get from "Obama agreed to meet with our enemies without preconditions" to "Obama will cause the death of Israel." First one must make some assumptions, based on lack of trust (or faith, if you're so inclined) in Obama. We'll say he meets with Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, and somehow caves in and agrees to something injurious to our interests. Seems unlikely to me, but OK, let's assume Obama is weak and ineffectual (all evidence to the contrary). Now Iran, emboldened by the American President's truckling (look it up) decides to declare open war on Israel. Of course the US, having previously made bad decisions and agreed to something stupid with Iran, decides to abandon many very long-standing agreements and partnerships, and trust, and such that we've had with Israel, now decides to sit idly by while Iran sweeps through the region and obliterates Israel.

Wow. Help me out, here, in understanding just how all these things would come to pass. They must really believe Obama is a secret terrorist traitor, or there's just no way we could get ourselves into this position. Of course, let's not forget the impeachment power (so very much under-utilized these days) of Congress. Would you think they would just stand by and do nothing? Where's the will of the American people? *sigh*

Joe is right about one thing: Everyone needs to go out and do their own research and find their own reasons for voting. And then do it. Vote. But I would suggest he reevaluate his "reasons" and employ just a little bit of critical thinking before he opens his dumbass mouth again. Moron.

And I agree: "Man, it gets frightening sometimes," is spot on. Idiocy, as demonstrated by McCain's poster child is frightening. I'm grateful there is at least one person in this race who is using their brain to do the thinking.

One more discrimination straw man

Yesterday I posted a long article addressing some of the most prominent arguments against same-sex marriage, but left (at least) one out. So, in the interests of completeness, I hereby provide my take on the following:

"Being gay is a choice; we don't have to permit these people to choose"

In some respects I can't believe I didn't think of this when I was running down the list. But let's take a look.

First, I would assert that being gay isn't just something you choose. But that's just my belief, based on my experiences with friends and family members. Yeah, I know gay people. And there are also those who are, at heart, bisexual and capable of having relations with persons of either gender. But for the purposes of this straw man, we assume being gay is choice, and an invalid choice according to some.

I can think of many things that are choices, but it's difficult to fathom a choice that would cause such difficulty, engender such discrimination, and/or isolate and alienate the one making the choice. I may be willing to accept that one's sexual preferences are simple preferences, but how far would you go in order to ensure your choice is realized? Seems to me that if a gay man could simply choose not to be gay, then in public he would do just that. What he does in private is nobody's business. But, he doesn't choose that. In fact about 10% of us don't "choose" that. Gotta be a little more compelling than mere choice, if you ask me.

So, if choice is all there is, then the case for permitting same-sex marriage is weak. A scam, perhaps. Maybe that's what I thought before. I'm not sure; I really hadn't given it that much thought. And that's the basic problem.

Now for the second part of the argument, that of not having to legitimize the choice. Other than the "moral implications" that some see, I'm having a really hard time finding fault with choices in human sexuality that don't harm anyone. Pedophilia and the like are clearly harmful, as children are not capable of giving informed consent. But adults are quite capable of deciding for themselves. And should. I can think of many sex acts heterosexuals routinely perform with each other that wouldn't be allowed if some folks had their way. I mean, no one should ever tell me what I can and cannot do with my wife, who certainly consents to our actions. I'm not doing it out in public and stopping traffic, etc., so what's the deal? For me, and I may be thoroughly amoral from your perspective, I really can't see the essential difference between various sex acts, whether the persons involved have penises, vaginas, or some combination of the two. Your equipment is just an accident of how you're made. All you really need to do is find someone else with the kind of equipment you like, and that likes the equipment you have. Period. Everything else is mechanics.

So, since the choice is as legitimate as any other, I'm hard-pressed to deny someone the right to marry any other kind of human adult that they choose. It's not a moral decision; it's no longer a matter of the impact on me (since in some situations children are involved, and they trump everything else). What I mean to say, if we must allow same-sex parents to marry so their children are taken care of, then the issue of choice becomes irrelevant.

Now, my argument may be specious because I'm using something I argued previously as "proof" in my current argument. Begging the question, as it were. But I still would fall back on the idea that being gay is not really a matter of choice. You either are, or you're not. Everything else in between is a choice. I won't even get into multiple marriages. That's another argument for another time, and the decision there is probably just as surprising.

My last point about not permitting choice is a fundamental part of my beliefs. Obviously there are choices that are harmful to others. But even the notion of "harm" can be a matter of opinion. Some feel "liberals" (a choice of political philosophy) are harmful to the political health of the country. Others might feel the same way about conservatives. But we still do need both sides of the debate. Governing in a democracy should be a balance, a compromise between extremes. You need dark for light to be important. Because the acts we perform legally with our spouses don't appear to rip the fabric of society, I can't really see how having a spouse who happens to have the same equipment as me is any more damaging. Not harmful if I don't have to see actions I don't like. And that's a choice I can make that no one is trying to inhibit. No one.

Denying choice for what are harmless relationships between consenting adults is not a strong argument. There are just as many currently legal choices that are clearly much more harmful, yet no one is proposing to limit those. Call it what you like, legally enabling parental partnerships is essential. The law must be clear and non-discriminatory, which implies that if we allow marriage between people of the same sex for parental reasons, we have to allow it for any other reason (or no reason), as well, OR we must limit marriage between heterosexual couples for the exact same reasons. No discrimination can be permitted based on sex, race, or sexual preference. What's good for one is good for all--or for none.

While we're talking about discrimination ...

Phil Plait of Bad Astronomy posted a video where every reference to "same-sex" was changed to "interracial" in an appeal against Prop 8 in California. For those of you who might be living under a rock, that's the amendment being proposed that would constitutionally ban same-sex marriage in California. Recently the California Supreme Court ruled that same-sex marriage is legal. A bunch of folks, many NOT Californians, have decided to weigh in on this decision by supporting the amendment. Yes, it's stupidly framed, but voting "Yes" here means voting "No" for same-sex marriage. "Yes" means you are against it. Got that? (Me, either.)

Here's my background on this: Some time ago I was opposed to same-sex marriage because I felt it would be extending certain benefits under law in situations where they should not be applied. Yes, it was a very naive perspective. So I got educated. Turns out (to no one's surprise) that many same-sex couples have children. Perhaps they're from a previous heterosexual arrangement, or perhaps from some other arrangement. For me, I would want the children to be taken care of, and that means that both partners absolutely MUST have the same rights with respect to the kids. I don't care what their sexual orientation is, you just don't take children from their parents (or their families, if 'parents' is too restrictive a term for you), and you don't deny the rights of any parent to care for their children.

OK, here's the logic I had to use to get from A) no same-sex marriage, to B) same-sex marriage permitted. I'm going to construct some straw men just to knock them down.

"Marriage is only between a man and a woman for the purposes of procreation. Nothing else."

Good one! But now we have to define procreation, because my wife isn't capable (anymore) of having children. And I knew that before I married her. Oh, and yes, I did marry her legally. Just ask the State of Ohio, County of Franklin. Procreation is the creation of more human beings. But beyond simply getting pregnant and having a rugrat or two, it's about providing for the optimal care of the younguns. It's about having help raising your kids. From your partner.

We can't decide that men and women can't marry each other if they don't intend to have kids. No one can predict the future, and even if you marry someone with the intent to raise a family, you can't then go back and declare them unmarried if they fail in that regard. Maybe men used to divorce their wives because those wives couldn't bear pups (I'm looking at you, Henry VIII), but these days that's not going to hold up. So clearly it's not practical to deny marriage between heterosexual couples on the arbitrary basis that they can't or won't have children. The law has to be permissive, here, because no one can predict the future. Case in point: I have a grandson. If something terrible happened to his parents, then I would want to be there to care for him. And so would my wife. Having us married means we both have the same necessary rights to provide the best care for him. He may not be blood-relation to me, but he is family. I'm his "grandpa."

"Same-sex marriage will force us to do things against our will/belief/etc."

Ah, this is a subtle argument that says churches will have to perform same-sex wedding ceremonies. Bottom line, it's an argument that because someone doesn't happen to like same-sex couples, they don't want to be exposed to them, see them, talk to them, interact with them, etc. OK, fine. That's the exact same argument Christians use against atheists. They don't like them around, so they want them to just shut up and go away. "If you don't like America, then get the hell out." Of course, who gets to define what America really means? Is it you? (Methinks not.) Ironically, opponents of same-sex marriage frame this as a First Amendment argument, claiming same-sex marriage threatens their rights of free speech or freedom of religion or choice. Huh. Odd way to think of it.

Let's play a quick analogy game. Let's say a new religion is starting up, and has strange beliefs that many Christians (or Muslims, or Buddhists, or Wiccans) find offensive. Not too hard to do, under the circumstances. So, if we see people subscribing to this new religion, the established religions start saying that it's somehow going to force them to acquiesce to these strange beliefs, thus robbing them of their rights to have whatever church services they want. But that's absurd, isn't it? You can do whatever you want in YOUR church, including throwing people out who don't fit your idea of suitable church attendees. No one is going to force you to admit these strange folk, if you don't want them. And that even includes interracial wedding ceremonies, too. Don't want them? You don't have to have them. I really cannot see same-sex weddings being any different. If you don't want to host them, you won't have to. Just don't do it.

But let's attack the "I don't want them in my face" argument. I've heard this argument many times from Christians in reference to atheists. Leaving my beliefs out of it, for the moment, I want to substitute "bricklayers" for "atheists" and repose the argument. I don't like bricklayers. Damned filthy men standing on scaffolds all day, getting their hands in all that muck and goo. Carrying bricks up, mixing mortar. Disgusting! Can't we tell them to go somewhere else so we don't have to see their despicable, immoral behavior?

This is a pluralistic society. It has all kinds of people, and in fact it takes all kinds. You can't simply tell one part of us to go away and get out of your face. No matter how strongly you feel that you represent the One True Notion of what being American means. It's changing all the time.

OK, so this isn't about atheists, but about gays. Frankly, the arguments are identical in my mind. Some states are trying to pass laws prohibiting atheists from holding public office. Yeah, let's see them try to keep openly gay people from holding public office. It would decimate the Republican party, at the minimum. And easily do worse to the Democrats. Those damn Liberals! They're all gay!! (And I'm kidding, of course. But you get my point.)

As as matter of law we have no choice but to rule on the side of what's best for our kids. This means we cannot narrow the definition of marriage, even between a man and a woman. If we accept that there are children in same-sex partnerships, today, and we must because there are children in these families, then if we are honest and truly have our children's best interests in mind, then we have to allow same-sex couples to marry, under the legal definition of marriage. As I said above, we can't take these children away--that's inhuman and does not provide the best standard of care for them. Whether you think the "beliefs" of gays is best for kids, or not, you have to allow that followers of strange religions will also have kids and want to teach them in their own, strange ways. Just as you want to do. Being gay, of course, is not a "belief," it's who you are. Like being short.

All it takes here is a shift in perspective. I'm not calling for the abolition of religion, or the removal of personal freedoms to act and believe as we all, as Americans, want the freedom to act and believe. Bricklayers are people, too, and they deserve the same rights (if not the privileges) that everyone else has. Two Wiccans can marry and teach their kids to be tree-worshipers, and no one bats an eyelash (well, except in one famous case, but that was ridiculous). Personally, I worry about the utter nonsense that some Christians want to teach their children, because those beliefs run completely against my strong beliefs in rational thought--my belief in reality. We need more rational thinking, not less, but obviously I don't have the power to force them to do anything. I suppose that's a good thing.

We need to keep matters of law separate from matters of belief, because I don't want to have to be or believe a certain way, just because it's the law. Rather, the law must allow all of us to be and believe, and more than that, achieve our own persoanl versions of life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.

(I didn't put in a bunch of links to the things I mention, above. Do your own damn research if you care enough about it.)