contrADDICTION

Anonymous ratings on Blogexplosion - A recipe for disaster

2004-12-03T17:49:00.000-08:00

Some talk has gone around on Blogexplosion of making Blog ratings permanently anonymous.

See, I'm fairly new to BE - been exploding for about a week and a half. Because of this new-ness to my account, I've been able to identify individually the ratings I've received (all nine of them). Mind you, I don't know who gave me the ratings except in a couple of cases (where the person also left a positive comment). I accomplished this by tracking the average rating on my Blog stats every time it changed and then backing into the newest rating. I'm an accountant: I can't help it.

Of the whopping nine ratings I've received, seven out of ten gave me a rating of "7" or higher - for an average of 8.9. The other two both game me a "1". Eight point niner vs. One. WTF.

Therein lies the problem of anonymous rankings. Maybe they gave my blog a "1" because they thought it was hideously designed or my writing was way below average (or both). Maybe they hated the game Contra (seriously, I doubt that one - I mean, we're talking about quite possibly the greatest NES game without Mario). I think the more plausible answer is that they disagree with what I've written.

Anonymous ratings allow people to spam bad ratings on blogs they find disagreeable. Instead of just hitting the "next" button, adding the blog to the "do not view" list, or leaving a comment about their disagreement, they cowardly ding you with a ONE. They are accountable to no one.

So here is my solution. Allow us to turn on/off anonymous ratings for our blog. If it's turned "off", no one can just slap a bad rating on you without you knowing about it. Hell, you could even make it so you could turn ratings off completely if you don't want them.

To sum up: if someone is going to act like a child and start a rating war or ding you with a ONE simply because they disagree with what you say, everyone (and particularly the writer of the blog receiving the feedback) should be able to see them doing it.

Red-State/Blue-State BS: Purple America

2004-12-02T01:03:00.000-08:00

The Electoral College blue/red state maps are ridiculous. And no, the county-by-county maps are absurd, too. Why? Because they poorly convey how the popular vote turned out.

Despite the fact that the election was won by a 3% margin, many have called the win a mandate. Calling Bush’s victory a mandate is akin to the following scenario: you go to the vending machine; but you can’t decide what to get. What is going to fill you up the most? What’s the biggest bang for your buck? You’re pondering either the Snickers bar or the peanut M&Ms. Five minutes pass. Now you’re deciding between the Cheetos and the pretzels. Finally, with great trepidation and uncertainty but an ever so slightly greater desire for cheesy instead of salty, you choose the Cheetos (Either way, you’re getting junk food, but that’s beside the point).

The stomach has spoken! It's a mandate! May I present Purple America:

Some smart guy at Princeton named Robert J. Vanderbei created this map to convey more accurate data regarding the dispersion and concentration of Republican/Democrat voters (Go here for a bigger version, more in depth information, and an animated version from 2000 to 2004).

There are a number of neat things about this map. Isn’t it interesting how abount one state left and right of the Mississippi River and then eastward the country is so much more purple? what's up with that arc of dark red? Or how about how the greater blue concentration lines the east/west coasts? Or rivers? What about the “Blue belt” of voters in the south? The more you look at this map, the more ideas come to mind (Here is a great side-by-side comparison of the state by state and the purple maps)

It’s fitting that the map looks a lot like a bruise. After all, didn’t we all feel a bit beat up after the 2004 election? And isn’t it silly how we talk about red states and blue states – like we’re proud or ashamed that our state came out blue or red. Republicans [Democrats] in a state that came out 54% red [blue] to 46% blue [red] cite their singularity in ideology – as if the other half of the state doesn’t even exist.

Another map created from the Electoral College vote has been made with “Jesusland” written across the red states – you’ve probably seen it. It’s as if those in the “Blue States” are all deprived heathens.

Are we so simple-minded? Can we just “round up” over 49 million people? I don’t think so. I think doing as such is like two people periodically getting to vote for power over one another – like some dysfunctional marriage where there’s no compromise – not even room for discussion.

As it is, when one side gets the gun, the other better watch their back.

I thought we were better than this.

Bumper Wars - Jesus Fish vs. Darwin Fish

2004-11-30T09:02:00.000-08:00

Bumper wars are fairly rampant these days – for the 2004 election I saw bumper stickers like “Flush the Johns” and those totally lame “W The President” bumper stickers. Nothing like rallying around someone’s middle initial to get the blood flowing! Apparently, there’s a sticker out there that says “M The Moron.” I’ve personally come up with a spoof on the “W The President” sticker that is “The President WTF”. You might have seen lefty’s concept of this idea on A La Gauche.

May I present one of the greatest bumper wars ever: Jesus fish vs. Darwin fish.

The Jesus fish has a long history. Back when Christians were widely persecuted (yes, some still are), the fish was a code symbol. One person would draw an arc in the dirt with his/her foot – like a raised eybrow. If the other person knew the code, he/she would draw a similar arc. Assuming they are both standing across from each other and the arcs have one point of intersection and one end where they meet, the two arcs made the following symbol:

The fish conveyed that a person was a follower of Jesus – in a safe manner. Pretty cool (assuming you’re a Christian), right? Since then, the fish has been bastardized in a number of ways not the least of which is business people putting the fish on advertisements. Nothing like pulling on someone’s faith to get the next sale! Anyhow, the most visible use of the fish has been as a metallic bumper add-on, the simplest of which is this:

Many Christians have not been shy about their disagreement with Darwin’s theory of evolution over the past 150 years or so. I can only assume that these vocal individuals were the inspiration for perhaps the greatest bumper parody ever to be created, the Darwin fish:

Not to be one-upped, those with the Jesus fish and those who failed to find humor in the Darwin fish had to retort. And you can hardly blame them. Here is what they came up with:

Pretty good, don’t you think? Big fish eats the little fish … er, whatever that thing is – except for one thing. It is unwittingly illustrating one of the most important pieces of Darwin’s theory of evolution: survival of the fittest. The irony is that these bumper add-ons are supporting one of Darwin’s theories to dispute Darwin. Oops!!!! And the war rages on.

Final Score: Jesus fish 1, Darwin fish 2

P.S. For some great Darwin fish, I highly recommend www.darwinfish.com; perhaps the doggy style one is a little over the top.

Biblical Contradictions - Genesis 1 and 2

2004-11-27T21:36:00.000-08:00

Background: I recently got into a debate via the comments section of a peer's blog, A la Gauche. As things go, lefty's post wasn't even on Genesis - rather, it was on problem-scripture in the Bible. It pulled a number of comments in support of Christianity and eventually, sparked a debate about Genesis between a fella named sofyst and me. Sofyst contends that there is no contradiction between the first two verses of Genesis. My goal is to debunk this notion as concisely as possible.

First you might want to get caught up on the two passages I'll be discussing. If you go here, you'll see Gen. 1 and clicking the arrow will take you to Gen. 2 (Note that I used the King James Version).

Here is a summary of the events in Genesis 1:

First day: God creates heavens and earth, water on the earth, light (night and day - thus, the first day)
Second day: God creates the firmament (called heaven - perhaps a different heaven from that created on the first day)
Third day: Land, seas (made by creating the land), vegetation
Fourth day: The sun and moon and stars
Fifth day: Fish and birds
Sixth day: Land-based living organisms and man and woman (the hebrew word for man in 1:27 is equivalent of "mankind" - male and female. This is made succint in the statement "God created man in his own image, in the image of God created he him; male and female created he them."
Seventh day: God rests. (This is captured in Gen. 2:1-3)

Summary of Genesis 2:

It is important to note that what you can't see in the online version of the text is the clear break at this point from a poetic verse to prose starting in Genesis 2:4. Here, creation is either elaborated upon or retold entirely - depending on what you wish to believe. Either way, here is a summary of the chronology of Gen. 2:4-25. In order to be unequivocal about chronology (words like before, past tense, and "if-then" arguments), I'll be quoting certain scriptures.

5 And every plant of the field before it was in the earth, and every herb of the field before it grew: for the LORD God had not caused it to rain upon the earth, and there was not a man to till the ground. 6 But there went up a mist from the earth, and watered the whole face of the ground. 7 And the LORD God formed man of the dust of the ground, and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life; and man became a living soul. 8 And the LORD God planted a garden eastward in Eden; and there he put the man whom he had formed. 9 And out of the ground made the LORD God to grow every tree that is pleasant to the sight, and good for food;

Synopsis: There is no water on the earth because God had not caused it to rain yet. There are no plants as a result. The earth is dry. A mist appears, waters the ground, God forms man from the dust of the ground. God creates Eden. Every tree is created.

Skipping ahead a bit past God's creation of a few rivers ...

18 And the LORD God said, It is not good that the man should be alone; I will make him an help meet [a helper] for him. 19 And out of the ground the LORD God formed every beast of the field, and every fowl of the air; and brought them unto Adam to see what he would call them: and whatsoever Adam called every living creature, that was the name thereof. 20 And Adam gave names to all cattle, and to the fowl of the air, and to every beast of the field; but for Adam there was not found an help meet [a helper] for him. 21 And the LORD God caused a deep sleep to fall upon Adam, and he slept: and he took one of his ribs, and closed up the flesh instead thereof; 22 And the rib, which the LORD God had taken from man, made he a woman, and brought her unto the man.

Synopsis: God decides that man needs companionship. Therefore, God creates beasts and birds. This didn't cut it. So God creates woman.

In this "elaboration" or "retelling", there is a clear order of events:

1. God puts water on a dry earth.
2. Man is formed first and then vegetation is formed (Man necessarily coming first because according to Gen. 2, for plants to appear, they need a) water and b) man to till the ground)
3. God creates beasts and birds for man. They are necessarily created after the creation of man because God's justification for creating them is man's need for companionship.

End of evidence and summary.

Contradictions:

1. In Gen. 1, vegetation preceeds the creation of man. In Gen. 2, vegetation comes after man's creation. This point is indisputable since the scripture is clear that vegetation requires both water and the labor of man. Either way, the first clear indication of created vegetation is God planting the garden of Eden. Man must already be created at this point since God "put the man" in Eden. At this point, God creates trees. Trees (and all vegetation) were created on the third day in Gen. 1 (just like all other vegetation). But man was created until day six. Not man and then vegetation as in Genesis 2. Instead of water, vegetation, man (Genesis 1), we have water and man, vegetation (Genesis 2).

2. In Gen. 1, non-human lifeforms (birds and beasts) preceed the creation of man. In Gen. 2 birds and beasts are created because man requires companionship. When this fails (did God not realize that man would need more than birds and beasts for companionship? Oops! I won't go into this here), God creates a woman. Therefore, instead of male and female being created after all other beasts as in Genesis 1, in Genesis 2 man is created, then birds and beasts, then woman.

There are multiple explanations to account for these conflicts. For one, it is believed that these two accounts were written at different times and by different individuals. For another, many regard the "big picture" ideas of these passages (i.e., they were written to provide a creation account from monotheism and order instead of polytheism and chaos - the reigning ideas of the time) instead of trying to make them reconcile to each other or to any science.

Either of these choices is fair. There is nothing wrong with accepting these contradictions. The only thing wrong (obviously in my opinion) is ignoring they exist.

The [Anything But Fair] Tax

2004-11-26T16:40:00.000-08:00

As it is, our tax system is tantamount to "splitting the check". If your friend orders steak and you get a salad and you decide to "split the check", you are getting stuck with paying for a portion of your friend's steak. This is happening millions of times over under the current tax system. Having no kids, I pay for a parent's tax credit. Renting instead of owning, I pay for someone else's interest deduction. My low interest college loan is subsidized by countless people who never went to college or don't have kids. Is this fair? Can we really justify taking from one's pocket and putting in someone else's pocket? How could we make it fair?

The fair tax plan is one solution. To my fairly rudimentary knowledge, this plan would simply tax us by taxing our purchases. Thus, the more you spend, the more you pay for taxes. In theory, it would 1) encourage people to save money instead of spending it 2) make our effective tax percentage (total tax paid divided by total yearly earnings) more equitable and 3) replace an extremely complex income tax plan that nobody could ever hope to understand. This is coming from someone who has an undergrad. and masters degree in accounting and got a 98% on the tax section of the CPA exam. It's ridiculous.

So, about the "fair tax" plan, if you make a lot of money and only buy necessities, you're effective tax rate will likely be lower than those who make less money and buy the same goods. Comparatively, if you're one of those people who makes a lot of money and ends up spending all the money you make, you're going to be taxed more. In theory, such a tax rate could curb American consumerism - arguably, a great thing. I *think* the reason it's called the "Fair tax" is because the wealthy aren't shouldering such a huge burden for a bunch of services they don't receive (not sure what the actual statistic is, but I want to say that the upper 5% in wealth pay out a huge percentage of total taxes; therefore, moving to a tax on buying, you're not taking from the rich to subsidize the poor. This is more "fair".

But is it fair? If you're benefiting substantially from farm subsidies but only paying taxes on what you spend, is that fair? What would be fair?

I argue that the "fair tax" plan is really just a simpler way to do what is already being done; namely, redistribute wealth. A tax plan that was really "fair" would tax people on what the government provides for them. If you use the roads a lot, you pay more in taxes that go to roads. If you use public schools, you're taxed more on them. This, and only this, would be a "fair" tax plan. Any system that continues to "split the check" will never be fair.

That being said, it would be difficult to do the system I'm proposing. But it would be honest. It'd stop a system that steals from everybody and pays back to less than everybody (meaning some people make out better while others worse). Why would such a system be wrong? Why is it okay to take other's wealth? How do we justify that? More to come ...

Overpopulation and the End of the World

2004-11-24T17:31:00.000-08:00

Two great movies that have come out in the past few years were Dawn of the Dead and 28 Days Later. Both fall in the zombie genre. Here's a brief synopsis: some extremely deadly and contagious virus is set loose on the population. The virus turns you into some form of deranged human being that has murder on the brain or some kinda flesh eating undead (28 days being the former and DotD being the later). If you're not squemish, I highly recommend these movies.

The more I've thought about these "end of the world" plagues (Also like Stephen King's The Stand, a great book), the more I think that a lot of us (humans) secretly wish that one of these end of the world scenarios would happen. Of course, the person thinking it is also assuming he/she would be one of the lone survivors. And I don’t really mean the zombies thing, but more the Stephen King version. Some coworkers and I had a discussion about what you would need should something like this ever happen. I'm thinking guns, canned food, and bottled water.

Anyhow, I almost feel guilty for thinking it, but I've begun to think that I'm not alone. Do you ever wish that there were five billion fewer people? Let me go ahead and say that I am in no way advocating some kinda genocide. Just more of a "what if?"

I think these thoughts are evoked by a grossly overpopulated world. Human beings just weren't meant to be so plentiful, and I think some evolutionary leftovers are lurking in our subconcious mind and revolting against the overcrowding. Call it population claustrophobia.

Anyone else have a similar creepy desire for a huge decrease in the population?

Live Action Role Playing

2004-11-12T01:44:00.000-08:00

Now this is some funny stuff.

Yes, grown adults actually do this. Yes, that guy was really wearing a kilt.

Lightning Bolt! Lightning Bolt! Lightning Bolt! Apparently, there's a whole subculture of people who like to play dress-up games where they throw foam balls (representing magic) and have swords made out of PVC pipe. I guess there are rules to these games.

I know I've mentioned www.urbandictionary.com before, but it stands to be mentioned again. Check out this definition for lightningbolt. And how about this one for LARP (Read definition no. 2). I mean, holy cow that's hilarious.

In other news, got Halo 2 the other day. So far I think it's a great game and a big improvement over the original Halo. Though the graphics still aren't as good as say Unreal Tournament 2003, they're MUCH MUCH better than the original. And so far, I like the game play more, as well. We'll see what I think after this weekend's brawl.

No, playing video games is a lot different than live action role-playing. For one, it's a bunch of adults who are playing a game on a TV screen where their character is the Master Chief and you're killing alients known as the Covenant. Obviously, this is not the same as some Dungeons & Dragons meets Dodgeball. A frag is a far cry from a lightningbolt!! I'm serious. No, for real! They're not the same!!! Woooooooooot!!!!!!!!

P.S. Add "urbandotcom" to your buddy list for instantaneous definitions from urbandictionary.com.

Creationism vs. Evolution ... WHAT?!?

2004-11-08T18:23:00.000-08:00

It came to my attention recently that school boards in Wisconsin and Georgia were fighting to include "Creationism" in the school curriculum alongside the theory of evolution. Though I understand that the theory of evolution is far from complete, the ideas of natural selection and survival of the fittest have held up pretty well against evidence. And it's fairly amazing that Darwin came up with these ideas before we knew anything about the complexity of DNA.

You can believe what you want. And though I personally don't believe in creationism (a.k.a. intelligent design) as a viable theory considering the age of earth and the universe (sure took the creator a long time to finish the task - somewhere around 14 billion years. Either creation is very taxing or the designer wasn't very intelligent and made a lot of mistakes), the imperfections of creation (a.k.a. useless organs), and the similarity between lifeforms (We share 99% of the same active DNA with chimps - maybe the creator was making a joke?), among other things.

I decided to do a little online research and came across a great site on the side of creationism - creationism.org. For a good laugh, I highly recommend reading the F.A.Q. Here's a great excerpt:

There are actually several different versions of what is called "creation science." Some creationists bend strongly towards accepting most of the evolutionary interpretations but stop at the point of life falling together all by itself in the first place. These creationists argue for an "initial cause" (or "First Cause"), i.e. that "Someone" ... catalyzed early events and then evolution was the process used by this "God" after that. From www.creationism.org we link to a few of those sites, if you're interested. But other creationists, like those contributing to this web site have continued learning ... and have come to the understanding (or belief, if one prefers) that there really is no good scientific evidence supporting evolutionism at all; and there is no way that the Earth could be over 10,000 years old. This is complicated, but many of these "young earth creationists" really do believe that 4004 B.C. is probably pretty close to the original creation date. I know that this sounds utterly laughable to those who believe that the radioactive dating methods actually work, sorry.

I love a few things about this statement. For one, I really like how the creationists that believe evolution to be compatible with creationism in an altered form are implied to have "stopped learning". Guess they just haven't reached the enlightened state that the earth really is (despite INNUMEROUS findings to the contrary) roughly 6000 years old. Of course, I also like the fact that these folk believe that the earth was created around 4004 B.C.

And at the risk of sounding overly harsh (too late for that, really), these people are living in the stone age. How could you look at the grand canyon and believe that the earth is only 6000 years old? How could you know the vast expanse of the universe and believe this? How could you know that the continents are shifting and were once roughly one large land mass and believe that was how the world existed a mere six millenia ago? Do you honestly believe that man existed along the dinosaur and somehow banded together to make these reptiles extinct? What about the craters on the moon - when did those get there? And if there are craters on the moon that arguably were created some time in the past 6000 years, why aren't there similar ones on Earth's surface?

I could go on and on and on. But the evidence in support of this supposition can in no way outweigh the evidence against it. Furthermore, it is absurd to posit that Genesis 1 and Genesis 2 (which if you read them literally, clearly conflict with each other in the order of creation) were intended to be scientific treatises on the creation of the world. Maybe writing scientific history in poetic (Gen 1) and prose (Gen 2) form in a religious work was acceptable at the time.

Evolution isn't perfect. But as the theory of evolution evolves through the use of the scientific method (evidential natural selection and survival of the fittest), it will become a better theory. And if you want to believe creationism (which is unavoidably tied to religion, which is constitionally prohibited from public schools), that's fine. No one says you have to believe evolution or that the world isn't flat. But you can't put into school curriculum a theory that is founded upon faith-based evidence. That's not science - IT'S RELIGION.

Pre-election angst

2004-11-01T18:05:00.000-08:00

...

I just read my friend Shannon's post regarding the election. A pretty fair-handed read on thoughts that are probably going through many-an-American's mind tonight. What is going to happen tomorrow and how will it affect the outcome of our lives? Which President will work to strengthen freedom? Which will hamper it? Can either of the two who stand a chance of winning maintain the status quo? I don't know.

What I do know is that we are most certainly less free today than we were four years ago. With the Patriot Act alone, our civil rights have been damaged. Even though I voted for Gore in 2000, I'm not sure he would have done a better job as el Presidente. Applying the democratic modus operandi that "The government can fix problems", I'm fairly certain our freedoms would have been impeded in other (more fiscal) ways. It's all "if, if, if!"

I remember thinking on election night in 2000, "I can't believe Bush has won. What will become of our country?" It's funny how we can change over four years. Now, I think, "Both of these candidates are sub-par examples of what our country deserves. No matter who wins, America will lose - it's just a question of which candidate will cause America to lose more." I'm a cynic when it comes to power over others and those who desire such power. I suppose I've lost my naivete.

Yet I wait anxiously for tomorrow to come and go: maybe there's still some hope left in me. I only wish that hope wasn't vested in a 3rd party candidate most Americans have never heard of.

On a lighter but similar note, I hope that the 3rd parties royally f--k some s--t up.

Tom Selleck and Rosie O'Donnell

2004-10-29T18:43:00.000-07:00

............

I'm thinking about joining the NRA. Maybe I should buy a gun first.

I think it's easy to hate the NRA. They're all about guns and crazy or desparate people use guns in violent ways. Subconsciously, it's easy to associate the NRA with a bunch of gun-toting crazy people. Just look at this arsenal of legal guns:

Who owns these guns? Why do they own them? And why does that person have a fanny pack on?

I know that I get these notions about the NRA because guns scare me. If some thug pulled a gun on me, I'd probably piss my pants.

I read this great transcript from a Rosie O'Donnell show. Rosie gets a little worked up against my man Tom Selleck. You'll have to read the transcript yourself, but the gist is that Rosie goes nuts on Tom because he supports the NRA. The reason he supports the NRA is because he's a big supporter of civil liberties and a society (which is a just a word for a large body of individiuals) protecting itself from the intrusions of government. Here's the gem of the discussion, which is to say, the part I agree most with:

Let me say just one thing. What you're really talking about...at least what I'm talking about...is are we a responsible enough society, in terms of television, in terms of guns, in terms of everything else, to be this free? That should frame the debate. My answer unfortunately, in this culture, is "probably not". But I'm going to go down with the Civil Liberties ship, and all the Bill of Rights, and apply them equally. That's the way I feel. You can ask me specific questions about anything, but it's simply stupid political rhetoric.

That's some good stuff right there and it sums up why I find myself most aligned with the libertarian ideals. I'd rather go down on the freedom ship than the socialist ship. At least under one of those ideals, some human beings can maintain their sanity and glimpse happiness rather than everybody just being miserable. And that's why I'd join the NRA. Because it fights for individual liberties. How can we expect society to be more responsible when the government takes more responsibilities away from that society? It just doesn't work.

Tom shoulda just ripped off his shirt.

Workin'

2004-10-29T06:57:00.000-07:00

Sorry for not posting in so long. With the late nights watching baseball and the somewhat late nights working on a 10-Q, just haven't had the time to post anything. But I should have something up real soon - like this weekend. In the meantime, enjoy learning about all kinds of words and slang at www.urbandictionary.com. It's for 31337 haxors, so stfu before I bust out and pwn you.

Kerry, Scary, and WTF

2004-10-21T20:13:00.000-07:00

Kerry?

Scary?

WTF?

(Note: These links aren't related in any way. Thanks to BTF and NTO for the Kerry and Pentagon Strike links, respectively)

"Vote or Die" or "Puffy, F'n idiot!"

2004-10-19T20:01:00.000-07:00

Our country is faced with choosing two candidates that most of the American public disagrees upon. And in this time when discerning "the best man for the job" (please feel free to substitute "woman" in there if it suits your fancy) is so difficult we have a campaign to "Vote or die".
The idea of the program (Just like the "Rock the vote" campaign) is to put an emphasis on the importance of voting, which is to say the importance of being active in the ongoings of the world. This is a great program - theoretically. Why not encourage people to get involved? And what better way to start to get involved than by voting? Yeah that makes sense.

These programs are dangerous. Do we really want it to be "cool" to vote? Is that what voting has come to? Something you do b/c "you're supposed to." Do we want people voting who know very little about the country or the world? People that probably would have otherwise sat on their asses? Mostly because P. Diddy said so?

Let me analogize this to something a little closer to home. The issue is the accounting treatment of stock options as determined by the Financial Accounting Standards Board. Most of you likely know little to nothing about this subject, but because I have a BBA and a Masters in Accounting I know something about this. Now let's go further to say that anyone can vote on the matter at hand. Even though 99% of the public would have no idea how stock options should be accounted for, they could still put the issue to a vote. The consequences of the vote would affect how millions of people were compensated in the United States. Would you want someone to start up a campaign to get the ignorant masses to vote on the issue? Why would you want people to vote on something they know nothing about?

And perhaps that last question best gets to the matter at hand. What is the purpose of the campaigns? What demographic is being egged on to vote? What candidate are they most likely to vote for based on the campaign? Do we really want people to vote just because they can?

The sad thing is how we rarely realize when we're being used, and I've begun to realize that I am (and we are) used all the time.

Hey, if Hillary says it, I'm believing it. Although I think they should cut the bullshit and change the slogan from "Vote or die" to "Vote [for John Kerry] or die." I don't care if it was "Vote [for George W.] or die" this is a dumbass campaign. Puffy, f'n idiot! (Thanks Halvo for the title)

Latest Polls.

2004-10-17T10:44:00.000-07:00

Just checked the latest poll from Reuters. Looks like we're in for another close presidential race.

Like anyone that finds political discussion interesting, I've done a lot of thinking about this current election year. I've found it interesting to think of this election in comparison to the election in 2000. For a brief recap, Bush won the electoral college in 2000 but lost the popular vote. He did not steal the presidency: using the Constitution as it was written does not constitute Presidential thievery. So here we are almost four years later trying to pick between Bush and Kerry. And not surprisingly, the polls are showing that the candidates are neck and neck.

Some might think that these polls are proof that Americans are divided. I think the polls are evidence that most Americans can't see much of a difference between the two largest political parties. I think Americans are attempting to pick the lesser of two evils and the two parties/candidates are both so #@$%ing bad that as a whole, it's a 50/50 split between the two. It's like trying to tell the difference between lilac and lavender on a black and white TV. As such, I can only hope that this is further evidence that the two parties really are converging and forming a nice thesis. And in the Hegelian sense, an antithesis to these dem's and repub's rising synthesis is on the brink. But how could new ideas become viable when there is no outlet in the current system for such an antithesis? For great proof of this glaring omission, look at what happened to two third party candidates when they tried to join the Arizona debate.

We the people of the United States of America are a flock of sheep. We bow down before our TV's and newspapers and so-called leaders and believe. We're too busy with our own day-to-day lives to do otherwise, so we cede control of our beliefs to those who do have the time. And what kind of person would want the power to control our thoughts? Do we want someone else to do our thinking for us?

I don't know who tricked us into beleiving that we aren't capable of knowing what's right or wrong for our own lives. Such a shyster should have been tarred and feathered. What I know is this: if you don't want to be the central command post of your life, someone else will. It's not wrong to have such leaders, but neglecting vigilance in monitoring and understanding their leadership is.

factcheck.org

2004-10-14T21:44:00.000-07:00

I'd like to do a little promotional work for factcheck.org. Although I can see a lot of people going to this site and counting up who wins on telling the most/fewest exaggerations of factual evidence (enough with the euphemism, they are lies -intentional or not), I think most people will inevitably miss the HUGE point: politicians lie all the time! It's not just republicans. It's not just democrats. They're all spinning *everything* to paint the best picture of themselves and the worst picture of their opponent.

Just one of the many reasons I have a hard time trusting any politician. I can't help but think that if you want to be a politician, you're the type of person I don't want to be a politician. Said differently, I want people who lead because they have no other choice - people who don't want to be congressmen or presidents. If they don't want the power, I have a lot more assurance that they won't use it. Anyone else feel that way?

The power.

2004-10-13T17:36:00.000-07:00

I finally caved into the pressure and read The Da Vinci Code. If you haven't already read this book, you're likely in the minority of the book reading population. You would likely be one of the few people who hasn't read the Harry Potter books (notably, I've only read the first one and I'm holding off on the remaining six until their all done, dammit).

TDVC is not a bad book. It's chapters are very short so even though the book has 450 pages or so, you could almost cut out 75 of those as blank due to the book having over a hundred chapters. Some of Dan Brown's writing style grates on my nerves. But what the book lacks in quality, it makes up for in substance, which does not mean that I took everything he said about the Holy Grail and the Christian church for fact!

The great thing about TDVC is that it has popularized an idea we too often forget: human beings are unavoidably dogmatic. We believe things we hear from those with authority. The more authority we vest in those people or those writings, the more adherently we hold onto the ideas thereby conveyed.

When it comes to religion in the U.S. of A., the Christian tradition rules supreme. Accordingly, the notion that Jesus might have been married, had sex, and had kids is a pretty insane concept to most people. The paradox is that so many hardcore (and even softcore, if you will) believers can coexist with the complications, problems and even contradictions within the Bible. Some read the Bible literally and simultaneously accept four Gospels that do not tell the exact same story. How can literalness and incongruency coexist? Faith? I don't know.

I could go on. I probably will at some point, but not today. Read TDVC because it reminds us that the history we've learned and the traditions we may hold sacred are most certainly incongruous with what actually happened. Whether that matters or not is for you to decide. As for me, I'm going to continue to take 20th hand information with a grain of salt (if I can afford to - if you understand my meaning).

When you're picking the lesser of two evils ...

2004-10-11T17:24:00.000-07:00

You better know something is wrong when you find yourself choosing between "the lesser of two evils." I saw a bumper sticker recently that said, "When you choose the lesser of two evils, you get evil every time." It struck me how apt that saying is for this (perhaps most?) election.

I can't seem to think of any more to say on that. I see Kerry and Bush as two evils. We're stuck with two guys to choose from (b/c there's no good support for third parties in our current majority rules electoral college process). Isn't it strange that we choose the next "American Idol" from a pool of thousands upon thousands of candidates, but we choose our president from a miniscule pool (maybe a couple hundred at most?)?

These realities should upset all americans. But ask yourself: when was the last time you saw someone who was pissed about both Bush and Kerry?

Tragedy of the Commons

2004-10-10T10:02:00.000-07:00

I rudely awoke this morning to a loud clumping sound from behind my bedroom wall. I live in an apartment complex and my bedroom shares a wall with the stairwell. Accordingly, when people run up or down the stairs, that sound gets transmitted to my wall and into my ears. Normally, this isn't a problem because the sounds that come through are so muted that I can just sleep through them. This morning's sounds were akin to someone throwing a tennis ball against the wall - over and over again.

After about 20 clumps, I decided to investigate. I wanted to see what nincompoop was waking me up at 9:00 A.M. on a Sunday morning. Come to find out, it's two people. Both are of the female variety and one is dragging her suitcase down the stairs. The suitcase was a little bigger than the largest allowed for carrying on a flight. I'm guessing that it weighed somewhere in the neighborhood of forty pounds. Roll clump ... roll clump ... roll clump. You get the idea. I restrained from bitching them out - what good would it do? But I'm fairly confident that that woman singlehandedly woke at least eight people up. Why? Was she lazy? Did she not care? Or did she just not think about it.

I think it was the last one mostly.

There's an economic theory known as the "Tragedy of the Commons". The gist of the theory is that whenever property is free for use by the public, it will get used until there is nothing left of any particular value. Public city parks are consumed by homeless people. Skateboarders "grind" on marble structures until their aesthetic features are replaced by scars. People litter. Companies pollute. The entire idea is based upon a simple notion we are all familiar with: cost and benefit.

Whenever the costs and benefits are separated, which is to say that those who reap the benefits do not bear the costs, problems inevitably ensue.

My unintentional alarm clock this morning is just another example. The benefit of dragging the suitcase down the stairs was that she didn't have to strain herself by carrying it. The cost was waking up an untold number of people.

You might not have thought about things in this context before. As such, before you throw the theory out as some economic bullshit, I suggest you try it out for a few days. See if it doesn't explain so many of the problems in our society - the recklessness and irresponsibility of human beings.

Cost and benefit.

My brother told me so.

2004-10-08T18:10:00.000-07:00

My bro told me that since I was so opinionated and that I seem to enjoy sharing my opinions with others (both statements are true), I should start a blog. So here it is.

Prepare yourself to be blown away.

Soon.