Pie continued

I just want to vent some more about this pie incident. It really pisses me off on many levels, so many that I don't even really know where to start. In fact, it pisses me off that I have to be pissed off about it. I don't want to feel sorry for Bill Kristol, and I sure don't want to have to admire his poise and perseverance, but the pie thrower has put me in that position. As Michael Wood says in his recent Word article (which is usually found online, but for some reason the server's down), I never thought I'd be caught dead clapping for Bill Kristol. (There are many other good responses to the pie incident in the recent edition of the Word, as well as some idiotic ones).

Yes, there are many things that bother me about it: the laziness, the idiocy, the damage to my and every Earlhamite's reputation, the obvious counter-productiveness, the egregious liberal hypocrisy. But more than anything, it's the self-righteous arrogance of the act that makes me seethe, that makes me visualize myself kicking the pie thrower in sensitive areas.

Bill Kristol is not Ann Coulter. He is an experienced political operative and journalist who very seriously advocates conservative policy and ideology. He has connections and experience at the highest levels of government, and his opinions are grounded in these experiences. I want to say to the pie thrower and to his far-left allies, "Isn't it possible that this guy might know something that you don't? Do you really think, in your infinite wisdom derived from your 20-odd years of life, none of which was spent actually making policy decisions, that you have the intellectual and moral clout to interrupt a legitimate presentation of ideas? Don't you understand, you sniveling, lazy, self-absorbed idiot, that fully HALF this country thinks that you are completely full of shit and that the guy on stage is right? Are they all morons? Have they all been brainwashed?

I can't wait to throw a pie in Walter Wink's face. When I'm criticized, I'll be happy to downplay my inappropriate behavior by noting how pacifism is an insidious, immoral philosophy that slavishly stands by while innocent people are killed, just as many people defend the pie thrower by criticizing Kristol as an imperialist war-monger. Ask the Iraqi Kurds who's more of a purveyor of death, Bill Kristol or an anti-war activist?

Ann Coulter is an inflammatory moron who doesn't deserve my attention. When she came to Earlham, I didn't go see her. I had that right, just as the pie thrower had the right to stay home. People in the audience had that right too, and they chose to listen instead. The pie-thrower violated their right to make that decision, and he should be punished for it.

If you want to change the world, you have to be smart and you have to work your ass off for it. The pie-thrower and his ilk, in addition to being wrong, are lazy. (That's not to say that Bill Kristol is right, but at least he has put his money where his mouth is and has worked to actualize his moral vision). I'll fight both groups tooth and nail; at least with the pie-throwers, I know I'll win.

Super Sketchy

Clinton's former National Security advisor found guilty of "not inadvertently" walking off with and shredding classified material.

Earlham Drudged

If I experience any more shadenfreunde I'm going to burst.

Karl Rove has a drug problem

How else do you explain how the Republican party stupidly, stupidly jumped head over heels into a lose-lose situation that now allies them with Jessie Jackson!?! Yes, it's an absolute freak show that Terri has all the lights on but no one's home but does that really mean you need to flush pretty much all classic liberal (libertarian) ideas down the crapper? Republicans give me the supply side economics and almost indescriminant use of force I crave, but cramming government into the realm of morality is not cool.

UPDATE: These are the classy folks Bush and the GOP sold the farm for.

sick and tired

I am sick and tired of being sick and tired.

First CBS now ABC? Thank God for GE

The same guys who recently brought CBS to it's knees are taking a keen interest in another potential phony document ostensibly created by democrats to discredit Republicans. This case isn't remotely as clear- cut as the National Guard docs, but there seems to be enough evidence to suggest that something fishy is going on. Is the MSM really this biased, dumb or both?

http://powerlineblog.com/archives/2005_03.php#009953

First, an alert reader pointed out that the copy of the memo that was leaked to a left-wing web site does not quite match the "exact, full copy of the document" as quoted by ABC News. ABC News identified four errors in the document, each noted with a (sic). The first such error is in the very first word, a misspelling of Terri Schiavo's name. (Interestingly, ABC did not note as an error the fact that the memo got the number of the Senate bill wrong.) But in the scanned version of the memo itself, as now leaked to the web, three of the four typographical errors have been corrected. So, what is going on? Is the memo now being presented as authentic one that was fabricated or, more likely, cleaned up after the fact? Second, our Washington sources tell us that a number of Republican Senators say they did not receive, and have never seen, the memo. This contradicts the implication that the memo is some kind of official Republican document that was circulated to all Republican Senators.Third, the only clear evidence as to the origin of the memo is that it was circulated by Democratic staffers. Tom Maguire, author of Just One Minute, wrote to point out this story from yesterday's New York Times: As tensions festered among Republicans, Democratic aides passed out an unsigned one-page memorandum that they said had been distributed to Senate Republicans. "This is an important moral issue and the pro-life base will be excited that the Senate is debating this important issue," the memorandum said.So the memo has been traced to a group of Democratic staffers. What evidence is there that its origins go back any farther? None, that we're aware of.

Something completely different

I still think Bobby Knight is the greatest, congrats to Texas Tech for making it to the Sweet 16!

It's difficult to describe in mere words, but this clip makes me terribly nostalgic for some reason.

White House VNR?

I heard a story about this on NPR and then my bro mentioned he read about it in the New York Times. I searched every which way on Google, and couldn't find any genuine footage from these things. If anyone can point me in the right direction I would be thankful.

I should note, that I find it strange that I can't find this stuff. It would seem that if it is so controversial, and improper, the footage would be widely available. Is this reason to be skeptical?

Paul Krugman Gotcha

As many of you may already know, Paul Krugman is one of my least favorite people. Ever since Bush got elected he’s written books and columns in the NYTimes that breathlessly foretell a grim future where the US dollar collapses like the Argentinean peso because of the “unjust” tax cuts. Well those tax cuts which certain media outlets would like to portray as completely discretionary might be the biggest factor behind the current economic growth we’re now seeing. As this guy will likely be as close as progressives will get to winning a Nobel in Economics it should come as no surprise that virtually everything Krugman has written over the last 5 years has been completely wrong.

enjoy:
http://justoneminute.typepad.com/main/2005/03/happy_anniversa.html

Roll the tape from March 11, 2003, please; his lead:

With war looming, it's time to be prepared. So last week I switched to a fixed-rate mortgage. It means higher monthly payments, but I'm terrified about what will happen to interest rates once financial markets wake up to the implications of skyrocketing budget deficits.

Well. Per the Federal Reserve, I see that mortgage rates were 5.67% on March 7, and 5.61% on March 14, 2003.

Today, despite the war, financial markets continue to slumber - as of March 3, 2005, the Federal Reserve tells me that fixed rate mortgages were at 5.79%. Robert Samuelson puzzled over this a few days back.
Perhaps the Earnest Prof is a bit stronger when forecasting equities? Let's check his stock market call of June 20, 2003; with the S&P 500 closing at 994.7 on June 19, 2003, Krugman wrote this:

The big rise in the stock market is definitely telling us something. Bulls think it says the economy is about to take off. But I think it's a sign that America is still blowing bubbles — that a three-year bear market and the biggest corporate scandals in history haven't cured investors of irrational exuberance yet.
Or, to put it another way: it's hard to find any real news to justify the market's leap. Instead, investors seem to be buying stocks because they are rising — which is pretty much the definition of a bubble.

As of this writing on March 4, 2005, the S&P is at 1221, up 11 on a good jobs report.

Would they rather rule in Hell…..?

Over the past few weeks I’ve been chagrined at the “unspinnably” good news coming out of the Middle East. So irrefutable is the progress that even the New York Times editorial page can’t find a way to knock it. Despite this, there seems to be a sizable contingent on the left that still wants to minimize any progress that has been made, dreads the accelerating democratization of many Arab nations and wants nothing more than the US to fail in potential future endeavors in Iran and Korea.

Here’s a transcript from a recent Daily Show interview with Clinton Aide Nancy Soderberg about a book she wrote with contributions from Clinton and Albright.

http://www.opinionjournal.com/best/?id=110006362

Stewart: He's gonna be a great--pretty soon, Republicans are gonna be like, "Reagan was nothing compared to this guy." Like, my kid's gonna go to a high school named after him, I just know it.

Soderberg: Well, there's still Iran and North Korea, don't forget. There's hope for the rest of us.

Stewart: [crossing fingers] Iran and North Korea, that's true, that is true [audience laughter]. No, it's--it is--I absolutely agree with you, this is--this is the most difficult thing for me to--because, I think, I don't care for the tactics, I don't care for this, the weird arrogance, the setting up. But I gotta say, I haven't seen results like this ever in that region.

Soderberg: Well wait. It hasn't actually gotten very far. I mean, we've had--

Stewart: Oh, I'm shallow! I'm very shallow!

Soderberg: There's always hope that this might not work.

And another attempt by Matt Yglesias to minimize the signifigance of Lebanon's shift towards democratic self rule:

I don't think that's a reason not to hope for the emergence of real democracy in Lebanon, but it's a bit of a sticky situation. More to the point, there simply doesn't seem to me to be any major geopolitical windfall we could possibly reap from any outcomes in Lebanon. It's a country that's very important to Syrian interests, pretty important to Israeli interests, and not really important at all to the United States. It just happens to be kinda-sorta near the strategically important Persian Gulf region. But nothing really bad has happened to us thanks to Syrian control, and nothing really good will happen to us if it ends.

Video-Blogging... of a sort

This is the abreviated version of spiel I have been storing up for a while and plan to elaborate upon soon. In an effort to easily and effectively distribute media, I came accross a website called Internet Archive. It is exactly what it sounds like, and opens up some very interesting conceptual doors for the average Joe, which I will prattle-on about later. For now, check this out. It's viewable on Quicktime and features Mark (in front of the camera) and I (behind the camera) testing our mettle.

Schadenfreunde

For most of my childhood, growing up near Madison, WI meant hearing weekly sermons (daily if I listened to WPR) about how much better certain European nations were for having social programs and economic regulations not present here. Repeated mentions of 10%+ unemployment and stagnant GDP didn’t matter – to these Europhiles some maddeningly inconsistent and subjective concept of “quality of life” was all that mattered. During my last visit over Christmas to extended family who live in a neighborhood festooned with signs warning about the risks of angering the neighborhood “eco-team” if unsatisfactory recycling takes place, I was lectured on how irresponsible US social and fiscal policies are in comparison to the EU’s. Well, I’m glad I’ll probably live to see their positions proven otherwise.

http://www.suntimes.com/output/steyn/cst-edt-steyn27.html

CIA analysts predict the collapse of the EU within 15 years. I'd say, as predictions of doom go, that's a little on the cautious side.
But either way the notion that it's a superpower in the making is preposterous. Most administration officials subscribe to one of two views: a) Europe is a smugly irritating but irrelevant backwater; or b) Europe is a smugly irritating but irrelevant backwater where the whole powder keg's about to go up.
For what it's worth, I incline to the latter position. Europe's problems -- its unaffordable social programs, its deathbed demographics, its dependence on immigration numbers that no stable nation (not even America in the Ellis Island era) has ever successfully absorbed -- are all of Europe's making. By some projections, the EU's population will be 40 percent Muslim by 2025. Already, more people each week attend Friday prayers at British mosques than Sunday service at Christian churches -- and in a country where Anglican bishops have permanent seats in the national legislature.
Some of us think an Islamic Europe will be easier for America to deal with than the present Europe of cynical, wily, duplicitous pseudo-allies. But getting there is certain to be messy, and violent.
Until the shape of the new Europe begins to emerge, there's no point picking fights with the terminally ill. The old Europe is dying, and Mr. Bush did the diplomatic equivalent of the Oscar night lifetime-achievement tribute at which the current stars salute a once glamorous old-timer whose fading aura is no threat to them. The 21st century is being built elsewhere.

Jimmah!!!

It still blows me away when even steadfast Republicans respond with “well he was a good man” when discussing the ineptitude of the Carter administration. I’m absolutely amazed at how he’s managed to transform losing badly into political sainthood. He won the Nobel prize and now he’s even getting a sub named after him.

Do you think the Navy knows about this? Screw Soviet expansionism Jimmah needs to win!!!

Soviet diplomatic accounts and material from the archives show that in January 1984 former President Jimmy Carter dropped by Soviet Ambassador Anatoly Dobrynin's residence for a private meeting.
Carter expressed his concern about and opposition to Reagan's defense buildup. He boldly told Dobrynin that Moscow would be better off with someone else in the White House. If Reagan won, he warned, "There would not be a single agreement on arms control, especially on nuclear arms, as long as Reagan remained in power."
Using the Russians to influence the presidential election was nothing new for Carter.
Schweizer reveals Russian documents that show that in the waning days of the 1980 campaign, the Carter White House dispatched businessman Armand Hammer to the Soviet Embassy.
Hammer was a longtime Soviet-phile, and he explained to the Soviet ambassador that Carter was "clearly alarmed" at the prospect of losing to Reagan.
Hammer pleaded with the Russians for help. He asked if the Kremlin could expand Jewish emigration to bolster Carter's standing in the polls.
"Carter won't forget that service if he is elected," Hammer told Dobrynin.

PHDeeze nuts

I ran across this article today. It's a little supplemental information to my rant about jobs a few months ago. I'm glad I decided to stay out of academia.

Y'all should really read it. It's good.

U.S. Tsunami aid

Bush has increased America's relief pledge by $600 million for nations affected by the December tsunami, making the total amount of aid $950 million. That combined with the estimated $800 million given from private sources is nothin' to sneeze at.

Similarly, I'd wager it's good news that the EU has decided to alter its tariff "preferences". This quote, was telling:

British charity Oxfam welcomed the move, but warned that more action was needed.

"The European Commissions decision to bring forward a new system of trade preferences for poor countries will help reduce poverty by improving market access, but the gains will be limited as many protectionist measures persist," the aid agency said in a statement.

Hmmnn. Improving market access helps developing countries? You don't say!? Protectionist measures on the part of rich, powerful countries, harm struggling economies? Sounds like Oxfam may have figured it out, now it's our turn. The Daily Times of Pakistan frames it thus:

There is also need to keep an eye on how much of the trade relief requested by the tsunami-affected countries will take effect. Sri Lanka, which lost nearly all its coastal fishing fleet, requested tariff relief for its textile and apparel exports. Thailand and India have done the same regarding shrimp exports. But the requests have already triggered fierce opposition from US textile manufacturers and shrimp farmers unhappy at being asked to open their markets further. Any change in import tariffs would require congressional approval, and Congress is hesitant to provide trade assistance to tsunami victims. Given the clout of the textile industry in Congress, any effort to extend trade relief will meet with fierce opposition.

If goading had anything to do with the U.S. increasing the sheer dollar amount given, perhaps it's time to consider charging congress and the President with the task of purging existing subsidies and the like. Trade policy that puffs up failing industries at the expense, in this case, of fishermen and textile workers half-a-world away (trying to get by on comparatively little) trying to recover from arguably the worst natural disaster in history is stupid. Axing said policies will do more good than cash chucked around higglty-piglty (though, by all accounts we're doing better at giving money this time than ever before). Just think, we get to help folks annnd buy cheap shrimp and clothing. Ohh, the invisible hand of capitalism...

I'm game (so far)

I found this article from "Reason", a libertarian monthly magazine and website, about the case for Social Security privatization. An interesting point: "The Democrats object that allowing workers to put some of their payroll taxes in personal accounts will worsen Social Security's financial condition, since the diverted money would not be available to pay benefits for current retirees. Although much depends on the final details of the plan and the number of people who participate, the administration estimates that making up the difference would cost $754 billion during the next decade.

But this cost will be offset over the long term by lower demands on payroll taxes, as future retirees draw more on their own accounts and less on standard benefits. Another way of looking at it is that establishing private accounts simply makes explicit some of the system's existing liabilities. It may not reduce them, but neither does it raise them."

There's reason (heh) enough to be leery of numbers as big as $754 billion coming from this administration, considering the way they sold Medicare reform. But, I'd be happy to give Socoal Security reform a chance simply to buck a system that seems more than a little antiquated. It turns out that FDR, the "father" of social security, supported the idea of voluntary personal accounts in 1935. Money quote: "In the important field of security for our old people, it seems necessary to adopt three principles: First, noncontributory old-age pensions for those who are now too old to build up their own insurance. It is, of course, clear that for perhaps 30 years to come funds will have to be provided by the States and the Federal Government to meet these pensions. Second, compulsory contributory annuities which in time will establish a self-supporting system for those now young and for future generations. Third, voluntary contributory annuities by which individual initiative can increase the annual amounts received in old age. It is proposed that the Federal Government assume one-half of the cost of the old-age pension plan, which ought ultimately to be supplanted by self-supporting annuity plans."

There should be no sacred cows where other people's lives are concerned. That Americans are used to Social Security working the way is does is no reason to keep it that way. Ideally, our government has a responsibility to enact it's programs in the most morally and financially efficacious fashion possible (that may sound redundant for some folks). If that means throwing what amounts to a tradition out the window, so be it.

Social Security

Just wondering what you think about Bush’s personal account proposal in conjunction with Social security reform. I think it’s an interesting issue because it’ll eventually affect everyone and even those I know who are under 40 and strongly dislike Bush are all for having more personal control of their retirement $$’s. I think regardless of your political inclinations, the vast majority of people now trust their own decision making over the government’s. Despite this, I'm fairly certain they'd oppose whatever Dubya throws out simply because he proposed it. This sentiment is highly visible in the differences in how the media handled Clinton's efforts of reform and Bush's current proposals -- even though they're both based on the work of Democrat Patrick Moynihan. Are there valid arguments against working on reform now or is it just political posturing?

The Generosity of our Betters

Gee the Europeans sure showed us:

http://thescotsman.scotsman.com/international.cfm?id=66782005

TSUNAMI-struck Thailand has been told by the European Commission that it must buy six A380 Airbus aircraft if it wants to escape the tariffs against its fishing industry. While millions of Europeans are sending aid to Thailand to help its recovery, trade authorities in Brussels are demanding that Thai Airlines, its national carrier, pays £1.3 billion to buy its double-decker aircraft.

How ironic, that’s almost the same amount the EU has pledged to the entire Tsunami affected region. Though I'm sure they're only collecting so they can be even more generous in the future. Just think how generous we could be if we gave the same money over and over!

rank

One of my friends likes to play a game called "rank," where he names things and has people rank them. One popular rank was the following: Favorite Rural America Event: Haunted House, County Fair, Themed Festival, Amusement Park.

The New York Times had an interesting article on global environmental rankings. http://www.nytimes.com/2005/01/24/science/24enviro.html

I'm still not sure why I'm supposed to be a big fan of the Bush daughters, Andrew. They seem pretty cool I guess.

My computer got this nasty Trojan Horse virus the other day. It really sucked. I had to reinstall windows, and it was a big pain in the ass. Now I'm using the Firefox browser instead of explorer so I can avoid any other viral occurences.

Something we can all agree upon

Now I realize some of you probably aren’t as cool with the whole idea of Bush getting inaugurated again as I am. And I’m also pretty sure many of you probably don’t like Bush’s whole “Freedom can warm you or burn you: Your choice A-holes!” speech as much as I do. But in the midst of all the hand wringing over how “divided” the country is I think it’s important to identify things we can all agree upon. The most obvious: Jenna Bush kicks ass. This became very clear to me this week while I was sick and watching Chasing Liberty while buzzing on Pseudoephedrine. Holy Moses that was a bad movie, but as hard as director Andy Cadiff and the combined resources of Warner Brothers tried they couldn’t make Mandi Moore cooler than real life Jenna. You may not like the president but you can be thankful you have something better than an Alex and Vanessa bore-fest for 4 years. Med-school? Yawn. Here's hoping this term involves some Daisy Dukes and a mechanical bull!

unimportant

It turns out that the colts did not conquer the Massachusetts liberals.

Go Colts!!

I fully expect any of y'all who live in Boston to start working on the sabatauge effort. The Colts will conquer the Massachusetts liberals!

weird, weird, very weird

I just watched the Peter Jackson movie, Meet the Feebles. I have been watching bad, tasteless, gorry, and offensive movies on a fairly consistent basis since I was about 12, and this was one of the most viscerally disturbing things I've ever seen. Like the 20 minute flashback where the frog puppet junkie remembers his experience being caputured in vietnam by the "guks" (which I guess were cats). This whole scene, which alluded to the Deer Hunter when the frog prisoners were forced to play Russian Roulette, was completely straight.
These and other images are going to be popping up when I don't want them for a while. Oh, like the anteater (I guess it was an anteater) who cummed out of his nose. That was a good one.

A break from empathy

I just read this bit on German toilets. Makes me want to take a sitzpinkler.

Not really, 'course. Sitzpinkler is a great word though (not sure if it's "real"). I put "sitzpinkler" in to a Webster's dictonary search, and my eye immediately went to "cysticercoid", which, is oddly entertaining in it's own right (however unpleasant). But when I googled the thing I found out that there's some kind movement or something called stehpinkeln, and a whole lot of other words that made me laugh. I hope you click on the links and are entertained.

More Thoughts on Giving

I’m confused by the issue of what distinguishes an ethical donation from an unethical donation. I believe, like Joe’s last post suggests, that it is the percentage given from one's earnings that matters more than the dollar amount. But even here, it is difficult to clarify what counts as sufficient.

Should we give everything we have so as to compromise our own health? Or should we give everything except what we need to pay our bills and buy groceries? May we save a little bit of money to buy a beer or see a movie, or would that be placing our wants above their needs? Basically, what must we (citizens or governments) sacrifice in order to meet the standards of a morally unobjectionable donation?

lessons about giving from a dead guy

Despite my official abdication of the label "Christian," I do love the Bible. Here's a little classic wisdom from the man, Jesus.

Mark 12:41-44
The Widow's Offering

41Jesus sat down opposite the place where the offerings were put and watched the crowd putting their money into the temple treasury. Many rich people threw in large amounts. 42But a poor widow came and put in two very small copper coins,[a]worth only a fraction of a penny.[b]
43Calling his disciples to him, Jesus said, “I tell you the truth, this poor widow has put more into the treasury than all the others. 44They all gave out of their wealth; but she, out of her poverty, put in everything–all she had to live on.”

Amen to that, can I get a halleluia!

http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Mark%2012:41-44;%20Luke%2021:2

A Stingy Primer

If yer curious, here's some frame of reference on the U.S. and it's "stinginess".

The San Francisco Chronicle has a brief, decent article on "How much to give" for tsunami relief. Foreign Policy Magazine and the Center for Global Development ranks the rich for 2004 "on how their aid, trade, investment, migration, environment, security, and technology policies help poor countries". Check here for the nitty-gritty of the study, of which this index is perhaps the best snapshot of the actual rankings. According to the FP piece, the US went up in the rankings 13 places due to a new measure of security, changes in how investment is measured, and a consistently improving migration number. I have no idea how much stock to put in this single source, but it seems to be the most repubidable analysis out there (I didn't see much mention of private donation, but then I just scanned the thing). Overall the US was at 7th. Japan was dead last. Currently, the U.S. government is sending around $350 million to countries affected by the tsunami, around $200 million more is coming from private sources. Japan has pledged $500 million in aid. Australia just pledged $1 billion.

As a matter of comparison consider Spain's $70 million pledge, with strings attached.Oh, and don't forget there's a new power structure to the world and it's being evidenced, at least for now, by generosity. Fareed Zakaria has an article to similar effect. India and Thailand are each saying, "thanks, but no thanks," and are turning away this money, again, for now. And China is making a historic break from "stinginess" and helping its neighbors.

These donation numbers are all going to rise, and many promises made with this money will go broken or prove otherwise flawed. The tally of dead and injured won't be made final for weeks (jeezus, maybe months?) and there's a shitload of work to be done. Giving aid is far from being a cut and dry issue and only time will tell how generous or stingy we are being. Either way, if you're not convinced our country doing you service in it's giving, the answer seems simple enough to me, give more of yourself. There are enough reputable charitable institutions out there that would be happy to make use of your contribution.

U.S. aid?

The U.S. gives way, way more money in foreign aid than any other country, but that's mostly because we are way, way richer than most countries. As a percentage of our GDP, we don't give very much. So, even though we give a lot absolute dollars, we could give a shitload more. On the other hand, we give a lot through private charities (which, of course, makes the conservatives as pleased as punch). I'm not sure if giving money to your church counts as giving money to charity or not, but a lot of charities are church-based.
We are also, to quote Charles Krauthammer (which I am not inclined to do), the world's fire department, in that we bear the brunt of the world's military "peace-keeping" missions. So, some might argue that we give a significant amount if we factor in our non-monetary contributions. That doesn't cut it for me. The accusation of stinginess might have been in poor taste, but it's true. More precisely, because of the weak political will of leaders in Washington, no politican or beauracrat has been successful at conveying the message that international development, humanitarian aid, and other forms of crisis intervention are as important to the interests of the U.S. as fighting terrorism. I believe that George Bush, like most Americans, is a good person whose heart truly aches for the incomprehensible destruction in Asia. But after the shock of this event, after the headlines fade to the second, third, last page, or dissappear, this country will settle back into its blissful ignorance of just how incredibly fucked up this planet is, and we'll feel comfortable about spending our money on bombs and stupid bullshit again.

Happy Holidays & Relief

I had a great time visiting the homeland (i.e., southern Indiana) the past few days, and got back to Beantown just in time to miss a wee snowstorm. I didn't do a whole heck-of-a-lot over the holiday, but then that was part of what made it so nice. If you have any exciting or otherwise interesting tales, by all means share.

In contrast, the past couple days have been horrible for pretty much every country bordering the Indian Ocean. These pictures tell a lot of the story, but having heard the death toll rise from 20 to 50 and now 100 thousand (I haven't seen this one confirmed, but it seems believeable enough), I'm still absolutely stunned.

Amazon is taking donations on behalf of the American Red Cross and they are looking to make a serious difference. Yesterday when I first checked in $115,000 had been donated, this afternoon they're up to 1.8 million. Instapundit points out that it can be fairly mesmirizing to keep refreshing the donation page while looking at the number of people donating and the amount given (I concur, the amount went up $200,000 in the time it took to write this entry). Glenn also notes, "What interested me most about the Amazon phenomenon was how quickly and dramatically it worked, raising lots of money without a lot of overhead." I just donated a few bucks and encourage the rest of you out there to do the same.

P.S. If you'd prefer not to donate to the American Red Cross for whatever reason, but would still like to give something, look through relief funds on the right side of The South-East Asia Earthquake and Tsunami blog.

UPDATE: There's some hullabaloo floating around regarding the U.S. and stinginess with aid money. That is, whether we are more or less stingy than other assortments of generous folk. I find the assertion to be pretty weak on it's face, and inflamitory besides. But if that inspires people to generosity, so be it. I don't see a loser if that's the game. Dan Drezner offers a reasoned, well-linked post thus.

Peter Suber

As Ben mentioned, I'm on sort of a Peter Suber kick. I was amazed by him as a student and am still amazed now purely as a reader. Anyone who has invented six knots, been a professional stand-up comic and taught philosophy is bound to be an interesting person. He has a profound mind, the vocabulary to articulate it clearly, and a knack for writing zingers that are both linguistically elegant and filled with insight. There are a lot of reasons that I find him interesting. But what I find far more fascinating than anything else is his sense of fairness.

I have never met or read anybody who is as willing to engage opposing points of view in as honest a fashion. He doesn't engage opposing arguments specifically to undermine them. On the contrary, he often shows ways to strengthen them that make them more persuasive than they were originally. But it's not a game. I don't think he does this merely to show that his position will remain intact when compared to even the best opposing argument. He does it, I think, in an honest effort to see if there's anything in them that is worth believing. He considers the possibility of having to temper, revise or even reject his own stance based on the points made by the opposition.

I'm a fanatic for this kind of flexibility of opinion. I only wish that I encountered it, and practiced it, more frequently. I recently found a short writing of his called The Clinical Attitude, which better describes the fairness and flexibility that he is an example of.

Good god, it's been ages!

Sorry 'bout that. I have no good explanations for my lack of participation and I'm not particularly interested in sharing the bad ones. Please forgive me if these seem a little on the brief side, but there's only one way to get back into the swing of things, so here goes...

Mark (one of my house/blog-mates) has been reading loads of stuff from Peter Suber's site. Peter was one of our Philosophy Prof's at Earlham College, and a particularly amazing one at that. He has an essay entitled "When we leave our desks" and it was originally a baccalaureate address given at Earlham in 1992. It generally works as a primer on Philosophy and specifically, for me anyway, as a kick in the pants.

My interest in politics has waned a little since about a month before the American election, but real life is always interesting. Since I constantly hear terrible things about what's going on in Iraq, I usually look forward to balancing it out with some optimistic news, Arthur Chrenkoff from the Wall Street Journal abides. This stuff from Spirit of America is pretty neat too.

Karla got me an IPod (20-gig style) for Christmas (we exchanged some gifts early), and I love it. I don't often listen to music through headphones and now hear what I've been missing. This morning I partook of some Magnetic Fields (69 Love Songs), Sufjan Stevens (Greetings from Michigan), and Neutral Milk Hotel (In the Aeroplane over the Sea). And it all has me thinking of splurging on one of these systems (or a variation thereof) from Apple. I have something like this at work, only a couple years old, and the things you can do from creating music, video, and doing photo editing is pretty amazing. Not that you can't do them on a PC, I've simply had much better luck with Mac's in this regard. Robert Rodriguez (another inspiring fella) is up to no good these days filming Sin City, using an HD camera and heavy post-production, but the main reason a filmmaker (especially one as notoriously penny-pinching and efficient as Rodriguez) can do this kind of thing is because of the crazy advances in technology from the past couple years. So it feels like time to either shit or get off the pot.

Oh and Joe, I found this one from Oxblog for you regarding the utility of school.

Ahhh... that's better.

UPDATE: Here's another link, with folks talking about making college mandatory?

my new toy

This is my first post on my new computer. I just bought an HP Pavillion ze4805us notebook. It was sort've used, but just barely. Someone bought it and the hard drive was bad, so HP fixed it and I bought it. It's practically new. It seems to be working alright. It's got an Athlon XP-M processor, 60G hard drive, and 500+ MB or memory. (The guy at circuit city talked me into putting an extra 200 MB of memory on there). I paid 999.00, plus a 100 dollar rebate, which I hope I will get back if I figure out how to do it.
It's got an integrated wireless (like I know what that means), but I guess it means I can get fast internet.
So, those who know about computers, how would you rate my purchase? 1. Joe paid too much for a shitty computer. 2. Joe paid the right amount for a shitty computer. 3. Joe got a good deal on a shitty computer. 4. Joe paid too much for a decent computer. 5. Joe paid the right amount for a decent computer. 6. Joe got a good deal on a decent computer. 7. bla bla bla for an outstanding computer.

musings

Last time I posted something, I was getting drunk. Now I'm hungover. I rocked the GRE. I bent it to my will. I am the man. I just read this thingfrom the NYTimes that made me feel weird. It was all about college and jobs and shit. Our generation, whatever we call it, totally got screwed. It used to be, if you graduated from college, you could basically get a job doing whatever you freakin wanted for a gazillion dollars a year. You didn't have to study something practical. If you had the degree, you were set. Now it all sucks. We pay a hell of a lot more for a lot less utility. Now I'm going to go to grad school, gonna make myself "marketable," but the scary thing is, I'm paranoid that my masters degree won't be sufficient! How fucked up is that! Ok, I get it, I don't have any marketable skills (I'm very good at going to school, but the market is down for professional students). I can read, write, speak, and think better than the average dude, but I've become obsolete. Fuckin A. And then I think about all those poor schmucks who are too dumb for decent jobs but too smart to be retarded and get good benefits. How are they supposed to compete?

Oh, the tears of unfathomable sadness.

Wow, was that gloating? I thought I was being rather amiable with my RNC hit list post. Internally I've been like Cartman tasting the tears of Scott Tenorman . Every time I hear any non-red-stater around me work themselves into a self righteous frenzy over 43 winning I feel all giddy inside. It's like watching a team you hate writhe on the ground in sorrow as you laugh victorious.

YEEESS!!!! YESSS!!! Let me taste your tears! They taste so yummy and sweet!!!!

I'm getting drunk

I'm gettting drunk at the big thanksgiving here in Boston. Although I'm tempted to respond to Andrew's gloating, in the spirit of bipartisanship and, why not, thanksgiving, I'll also give a big thank you for the demise of Arafat. But long live Hilary Clinton (I'd like to be able to afford a life saving operation if I need one)
Now it seems that the big bad fascist U.S. is supporting the quasi-communist challenger in the Ukrainian elections and is lambasting their sketchy elections. Boy, we sure do hate "the people"

Another One Bites the Dust

God it's great being me. I came into work today to find yet another person I despise effectively ruined. Here’s the tally so far:

1.) John Kerry
2.) Terry MCauliffe
3.) Yasser Arafat
4.) Tom Dashle
5.) Kofi Annan
6.) Randy Moss
7.) Dan Rather

Now all I need is Hillary Clinton, Paul Krugman and Robert Reich to have a fateful trip on a Russian airliner together and I’ll be set!!!

UPDATE!!!: Looks like Krugman's discrediting himself with renewed zeal. Come on Robert destiny is calling you! Oh wait, he listened...

Blogger Alchemists

Every so often science makes a discovery so startling that it forces you to see the world differently. These guys have found a way to turn crap vodka that would burn a hole in your stomach into vodka that supposedly tastes better than Ketel One with a Brita pitcher! Why are we pissing billions away on alternative energy research when an affordable single malt scotch could be just few years and an unidentified kitchen appliance away!

Best Death of the Year

Finally, finally, finally the world doesn't have to pretend this guy is a legitimate leader anymore. Though I think I'm still going to spasm every time I hear "Nobel Peace Prize winner" in conjunction with his name. Hey Swedes you can announce it was fake anytime now.

correction

In my last post, I meant that they can teach creationism, not evolution. Ooops, I guess I'm the retard afterall.

Babies and Homos

This election wasn't about national security, the war on terrorism, Iraq, or the economy. It was about two things: babies and homos. All the political pundits proved their appalling ignorance of the culture of the midwest. Too much time in D.C., New York, and L.A. I should've known better, cause I've lived here my whole life and I spent many of my formative years balls-deep in evangelical Christian fundamentalism. But it's not just Christians who hate homos. All the piece of shit white-trash-put-your-truck-on-a-lift-kit-nascar-watching-rednecks also hate homos, and lots of otherwise normal people over the age of 50 too. I say fuck-em. Let the republicans give them a 300 hundred dollar tax cut while they cut their food stamps. Let them dessicate their education funding. Who care's if they get condoms in school or not? Half of them won't go to school anyway, and the other half are too stupid to use condoms even if they could get em. Let them have their assault rifles. Too bad they can't eat them. I'm sick of advocating for the poor people in this country when the truth is that I don't like the sons-o-bitches anyway. I'll be fine. I'm white, and once I finish school, I'll be squarely in the middle-class, so I'll be alright if they cut medicaid, or medicare. I'll probably even be ok if they privatize social security, cause I'll have time to invest. Let the old people, the Christians, and the red necks fall on their own sword. Let them teach evolution in school. When India, China, and Japan fly past us on scientific research, I'll just sit back and laugh. Let them ban gay marriage. The midwest will conitinue to suffer the extremes of Brain Drain as the smart homos and those who support them move to the coasts. Let them have God's Country. I'll sit back and laugh as it turns to shit.

93%

Thats the percentage of provisional ballots that John Kerry must win to win Ohio assuming 90% are valid. Possible? Sure. Probable? Nope. Is it really worth putting the country through this again with a .001% chance of winning? Do you think if Bush was in the situation he'd do this? Nixon and Ford sure didn't and their chances were a hell of a lot better.

How did the left get so extreme?

Here’s a pretty good reaction to the recent Osama tape and the increasing severity of mainstream leftist rhetoric:

Is there any doubt that some bootleg DVD or videotape of Michael Moore's "Fahrenheit 9/11" made it to a remote mountain village somewhere near the Afghan-Pakistan border?
Now we hear Osama saying, "It never occurred to us that he, the commander in chief of the country, would leave 50,000 citizens in the two towers to face those horrors alone, because he thought listening to a child discussing her goats was more important."

Was the story of Bush's seven minutes in the schoolhouse really well known or a hot topic of discussion before Moore's movie came out? Is there any doubt that if not Osama, then one of his flunkies watched that movie and excitedly repeated the story to his spiritual leader, bubbling with excitement that even American filmmakers were exposing the foolishness of the Crusader Bush?

Last night, I heard secondhand that a left-of-center friend said, during a discussion about the tape, “Well, now I actually agree with bin Laden, I mean, the stuff he said about Bush.”
It was probably meant as a joke, or as a statement of irony. I wasn’t there, so I don’t want to draw conclusions about the statement’s meaning, and apparently the topic of conversation shifted so that no one could really analyze what that speaker meant.
But I have little doubt that in some other corners of our country, a statement like that was probably said and wasn’t a joke, or wasn’t ironic.

There was an old saying about politics stopping at the water’s edge. Over the last three years or so, we have seen that concept obliterated. We’ve seen a truly unparalleled deluge of criticism of the president that well beyond policy differences. He is tarred as a war criminal, a fool, an idiot, a warmonger, a man who trades blood for oil, a mass murderer of innocent civilians, a stooge of sinister corporate interests, a puppet of Cheney, a terrorist himself, the anti-Christ, the second coming of Hitler, a slave to Ariel Sharon, an anti-Muslim hatemonger… and I’m sure I’ve left out plenty.

The far left hates George W. Bush with a raging fury. So does al-Qaeda. Was it really so shocking that the rhetoric of the former would eventually be taken up by the latter?
This tape should cause many on the left to stare into the mirror for a long time and ask, “What have I turned into? How did I become so reflexively partisan, so blinded by rage, so intemperate in my rhetoric that my own arguments are being echoed by a man who planned and enjoyed the mass murder of Americans?”

“How the hell did I reach the point where I agree with Osama bin Laden on Bush?”

Once again, Frontline rules

Frontline, one of my favorite t.v. news magazine type shows, just premiered "Rumsfeld's War." It was a really fascinating disection of the inner workings and political maneuverings of the Pentagon and Bush's cabinet. Basically, it showed how Rumsfeld, Wolfowitz, Cheney, and others in the "Vulcan," neo-con intelligentsia and bureacracy systematically dismantled and replaced the military establishment, which by and large rejected their small, fast army and their "they'll greet us as liberators, democracy will flourish" utiopianism. It also showed how Rumsfeld outmaneuvered Powell in the battle for Bush's ear and in the battle for control over "post-war" Iraq. It was really, really cool. They have Wolfowitz on camera stating (paraphrase), in response to Gen. Sinzecki's contention that reconstruction in Iraq would require several hundred thousand troops, that "it's hard to believe that the reconstruction will require more man-power than the war." But, in fact, that's exactly what most military people thought! It shows how the neo-con naivete has hijacked the power structure in this country.
In other news, I'm coming to Boston soon, so Bostonians, prepare for your enema.

Please don't vote for Dummy

For the last 4 years I've tried in vain to convince people that Bush is not a moron and in fact is probably more academically accomplished and intelligent than John Kerry. I then stumbled across this blog which analyzes all available academic and military records for both candidates and concludes that Bush probably has a higher IQ than Kerry. His analysis was apparently convincing enough that the NYTimes decided to run an article based on it. The money quote:

Linda Gottfredson, an I.Q. expert at the University of Delaware, called it a creditable analysis said she was not surprised at the results or that so many people had assumed that Mr. Kerry was smarter. "People will often be misled into thinking someone is brighter if he says something complicated they can't understand," Professor Gottfredson said.

This is yet another example where the real John Kerry isn't as impressive as the manufactured educated, nuanced war hero image he'd like us to accept. Do we really want a president who finds it necessary to regularly make himself appear more impressive than he really is? Can the world handle 4 years of bad Robert Frost knock off poetry written to impress us? Enjoy:

"I had a talk with a deer today/we met upon the road some way … between his frequent snorts/He asked me if I sought his pelt/cause if I did he said he felt/quite out of sorts!"

Poll “Analysis” Shenanigans

UPDATE: Newsweek continues to lead with whatever data most favors Kerry. Like the previous post debate poll analysis piece they've decided to use registered voters without Nader this time referring to it euphamistically as the "national horse race". While the gap in likely voters has narrowed in this poll, characterizing this race as "getting even closer" when Bush leads or is tied in every other poll is a bit of a stretch.

UPDATE: CNN's decided to follow Newsweek's lead and fudge the numbers. In today's poll analyis piece they're calling the race "still tight" despite there being an 8 point gap in likely voters. This is because today, like the Newsweek piece mentioned below, they've sneakily decided to use "all voters" because this measure has Kerry closer. Compare this to their previous poll piece where they call the poll for Kerry despite only having a 1 point lead among likely voters. Apparently likely voters are good enough for Kerry, if they show him ahead.

UPDATE: Regression Analysis of polling data and an interesting interpretation.



UPDATE: Kaus and Patio Pundit also noticed Newsweek's curious poll analysis.

Even though it was anticipated weeks in advance of the debates, for the last few days even I, who was convinced the race was over after the CBS fiasco, was beginning to buy into the “Comeback Kerry” storyline actively forwarded by the mainstream media. Every news story I read before and after the debates had the same message that Kerry had closed the gap on Bush and had the “Big Mo” to eventually take the lead. Then I saw these charts HERE and HERE which hardly support the media’s conclusions. While polls are not perfect, the data doesn’t lie. Today I happened to come across the headline on Drudge that reports that the most recent Newsweek poll has Bush up 6 among likely voters – the measure universally accepted as the most accurate reflection of future voter turnout. Then I went to Newsweek and came across this headline “Too Close to Call: With the debates behind them, the contenders in the race for the White House remain locked in a dead heat in the latest NEWSWEEK poll”. Now it’s been a few years since I took stats, but with a margin of error of +/-4, 6 points is hardly “too close to call”.

What’s going on here?

Newsweek based the article on a measure “of all voters” instead of the more accurate likely voters that has the margin between Bush and Kerry 4 points closer. Why are they now using the “all voters” measure when it is less accurate, not emphasized by other news organization polls, and not used in every previous Newsweek poll analysis? The most innocent explanation is that the news media wants every election to be a close race to the finish and will report data that supports this. If both sides believe they have a chance of winning, they have an engaged audience on both sides. While this is probably a factor in this election as well, how likely is it that Newsweek and other mainstream media sources would be concerned about reporting it as a close race if Kerry was up 6 among likely voters? Not very.

Why is this a big deal?

Kerry’s base is substantially less committed to Kerry than Bush’s supporters are to him. Overwhelmingly, their vote is more an act of opposition to Bush than support of Kerry. This makes Kerry’s base particularly vulnerable to disinvestment. If at some point it became clear that a Kerry presidency was highly unlikely, voter turnout for Kerry would be extremely depressed. This appears to be CW within the mainstream media and they appear determined to do their part to make sure it doesn’t happen.

Bob Schieffer: Worst Moderator Ever

I watched the debate on CNN and in the analysis afterwards the leitmotif was that this was the least satisfying debate of the three. Naturally they blamed the candidates, but I blame Bob Schieffer. While his questions, overall were particularly unchallenging to both candidates, they were particularly so to Sen. Kerry. Over and over they seemed to be invitations to tee up on Bush penned by Mary Beth Cahill. My favorites: “Is there a ‘backdoor draft’ on National Guard and Reservists?” or “Pres. Bush, repeating a statement Sen. Kerry said, would you overturn Roe Vs. Wade?”. (I would love to hear if any of you could identify a question asked of Kerry that gave Bush equal opportunity) Personally I think after the 15min mark Bush took Kerry to town, but if the CW is that Kerry won this debate I think he’ll have Bob to thank for it.

UPDATE: Heres a better critique.

Kerry passed this up.

Errol Morris, director of The Fog of War and The Thin Blue Line, interviewed several folks who voted for Bush in 2000 but are supporting Kerry this year. In an interview with the Boston Phoenix, Morris said,

"I was in favor of creating nontraditional political ads. I think that a lot of the ads are so pro forma — they’re so expected that they are not terribly effective. You have to come up with new approaches. Everybody talks about the "Daisy" ad in the 1964 presidential campaign [a Lyndon Johnson spot that graphically depicted a nuclear attack]. Everybody knows what perfunctory advertising is, and people know what innovative and cutting-edge advertising is, and there’s no reason why advertising in a political campaign has to be the way it is.

Q: Where would you file the windsurfing ad the GOP did?

A: The GOP is very good at a certain kind of food-throwing ad. They go for innuendo. But they’re ads! To me, you want to create ads that make people think — that don’t necessarily just say the expected in the expected way. There was an essay by Schopenhauer that I’m very fond of, called "The Art of Controversy," in which he talks about how to win an argument. He says [that] there’s two ways to win an argument: there’s logic and dialectic. Now, anybody knows you can’t win an argument through logic, so let’s pass on quickly to dialectic. And then he proceeds to give you some 30-plus ways to win an argument any way you can. For example, after someone has completely discredited your argument and shown you to be a fool, you look directly into their eyes and say, "You know, I’m really glad you’ve come around to my way of thinking." [Laughs] The idea is that in any kind of persuasion, logic is not necessarily the strongest tool in your arsenal.

Q: And President Bush is a mass persuader who doesn’t really traffic in logic or convincing facts.

A: Yes. And to me, you’re trying to create ideas in the strongest possible way you can. What’s strong about these real-people ads is not necessarily the logical arguments that they’re providing, although in some instances they are logical arguments. What’s interesting to me is that they are real Americans, and they’re actually thinking about stuff. For people who want to say that we have an electorate that doesn’t think, this is an answer to that. This is an electorate that does think, and is concerned. And it’s valuable to hear these people express themselves. Not because they’re involved in some meaningless theatrics or performance — they actually feel this stuff."

I don't find it terribly surprising that Kerry passed these up. They are described as non-traditional by their author, so it doesn't seem to be much of a stretch to say Kerry saw them in those terms and similarly as a risk, if he considered them at all. However, take a look at the ads, now sponsored on the web by Moveonpac.org (a group I don't much care for, but don't let their baggage, or mine, stop you from making up your own mind), the style and content reflect well on Morris and would reflect well on Kerry, if he'd let it.

Christopher Reeve died last night

Harry Knowles from Ain't it Cool News has a pretty touching note on his passing. Also here's this from the AP.

insight-less:

The “B” is for Bias

If you’ve recently visited Drudge you’ve probably seen this memo from ABCNews’ political director essentially saying that it will essentially be ABCNews’ official policy not to "reflexively and artificially hold both sides 'equally' accountable" because "the current Bush attacks on Kerry involve distortions and taking things out of context in a way that goes beyond what Kerry has done…". This pretty much confirms what I’ve been saying for the last 10 months, that the MSM has decided that Kerry’s going to get a pass and that the media’s critical eye will be unblinkingly fixed to the Bush administration. From Evan Thomas, the Assistant Managing Editor of Newsweek admitting “the media wants Kerry to win and so they’re going to portray Kerry and Edwards as being young and dynamic and optimistic” in July to the CBS memo controversy we’ve seen an unprecedented decline in the editorial integrity of mainstream news sources. It’s incredibly frustrating to me that the news most people receive is becoming a less accurate portrayal of reality and more a reflection of the desires of poorly educated, idealistic journalism majors from the 60’s.

Darwin and a "Higher Purpose"?

I just found this article, Planet with a Purpose, linked to from Andrew Sullivan's blog. It's an interesting piece that describes a reluctant declaration from "popular" philosopher, Daniel Dennet, stating that "life on earth shows signs of having a higher purpose." It should be noted that Dennet is (or perhaps was) an atheist and wrote an influential book in 1995 called "Darwin's Dangerous Idea."

Here's a quote from the article:

"More recently, he urged his fellow non-believers to unite and fight for their rights in a New York Times op-ed piece, depicting belief in God as contrary to a naturalist" worldview.

I have some bad news for Dennett's many atheist devotees. He recently declared that life on earth shows signs of having a higher purpose. Worse still, he did it on videotape,during an interview for my website meaningoflife.tv. (You can watch the relevant clip here, though I recommend reading a bit further first so you'll have enough background to follow the logic.) Dennett didn't volunteer this opinion enthusiastically, or for that matter volunteer it at all. He conceded it in the course of a dialogue with me—and extracting the concession was a little like pulling teeth. But his initial resistance makes his final judgment all the more important. People who see evidence of some larger purpose in the universe are often accused of arguing with their heart, not their head. That's a credibility problem Dennett doesn't face.

When you watch him validate an argument for higher purpose, you're watching that argument pass a severe test. In fact, given that he's one of the best-known philosophers in the world, it may not be too much to say that you're watching a minor intellectual milestone get erected."

UPDATE: Daniel Dennet disagrees with Wright's summation of his argument. "all I am granting [in the interview]... is that IF evolution exhibited the properties that embryogenesis [i.e., the maturation of an organism] exhibits (which it doesn't, as I've kept insisting) this would work to some extent in favor of your purpose hypothesis.” Wright replies here.

a little hate goes a long way

As I mentioned in an earlier post, my girlfriend broke up with me recently and moved out. I was pretty sad, but I was ok. Then, a few days ago, I found out that she had slept with some guy back in April and hadn't told me about it, and, apparently, wasn't going to.
That added a nice big dose of hate to my emotional stew (as a consequence, I broke a bunch of her shit that she left at my apartment and made her get the rest out immediately). But, I also felt a lot worse. Without this revelation, I could have looked back on the relationship later in life with nostalgia, some sadness, but basically good feelings. Now, I fear that I'll look back on it solely with loathing, convinced that I wasted a very important part of my life on someone who really wasn't very cool.
On the other hand, maybe the hate will help me get over it faster. Knowing that the sight of her will make me nauseous might help me put to bed any lingering desires to get back together, and it will convince me that it really was her problem, not some defect in me, that pushed her away.
Happy to spill my beans of the carpet of the internet.

Cartoon funny

Everyone should check this out as soon as possible. Homestarrunner.com has some ridiculously enjoyable stuff, especially that which features Strong Bad and his email. Props must go to Carl, the baddest mo-fo I know in the NYC, for bringing these wonders to my attention.

Acting is hard

I've been auditioning for plays the past few weeks in an attempt to get some acting experience. So far what I've found is that my ability to observe subtlety is stronger than my ability to execute it. And although I don't believe that a critic must be as masterful at the art they critique as the artist, the dwarfing effect of sucking at something you criticize so much is refreshing in a weird way.

Agnes Nutter would be proud...

Which sign of the appocalypse is this?
(Hat tip: Neil Gaiman)

Ideology isn't (necessarily) a bad word.

Regarding Andrew's sentiment on Barak Obama; I couldn't agree more. Unfortunately those of us who kind of dig a strong Democracy will have to wait on that one. The reality seems to be that the established (or is it entrenched?) members of the Democratic Party have selected a man for the presidential election (with our help of course) who cannot help but define himself negatively (i.e., he tells us he is sooo not Bush). Perhaps my armchair, pajama-style survey of presidential politics is too narrow. [I filter my news through a medley of links from what appears on the right, you tell me.] Maybe, my impression is too simply based on the sheer number of sentiments I've heard from those who find reason enough to support Mr. Kerry. I hear variants of "Bush is so overwhelmingly poor that I have little choice [but to vote against him]." Nonetheless, I can't shake the impression that Kerry has yet to craft a coherent, believable message grounded in a positive ideology.

Mr. Obama has (I think wisely) already begun crafting an active, positive position in this arena, by defining the war on terror. Sure it’s only a start, but a worthy and straightforward one on a complex, divisive issue. If Democrats are to compete with Republicans in the political marketplace of ideas it will be by creating a position, however flawed, that represents a vision for the future.

If I were to guess, I'd say it will come from reflection (after losing this Presidency) and be preceded by something like this...

"What a tragedy for the left-the worldwide left, this left of ours which, in failing to play much of a role in the antifascism of our own era, is right now committing a gigantic historic error. Not for the first time, my friend! And yet, if the left all over the world took up this particular struggle as its own, the whole nature of events in Iraq and throughout the region could be influenced
in a very useful way, and Bush's many blunders could be rectified, and the struggle could be advanced.

"My friend's eyes widened, maybe in astonishment, maybe in pity. He said, "And so, the United Nations and international law mean nothing to you, not a thing? You think it's all right for America to go do whatever it wants, and ignore the rest of the world?"

I answered, "The United Nations and international law are fine by me, and more than fine. I am their supporter. Or, rather, would like to support them. It would be better to fight an antifascist war with more than a begrudging UN approval. It would be better to fight with the approving sanction of international law-better in a million ways. Better politically, therefore militarily. Better for the precedents that would be set. Better for the purpose of expressing the liberal principles at stake.

If I had my druthers, that is how we would have gone about fighting the war. But my druthers don't count for much. We have had to choose between supporting the war, or opposing it-supporting the war in the name of antifascism, or opposing it in the name of some kind of concept of international law. Antifascism without international law; or international law without
antifascism. A miserable choice-but one does have to choose, unfortunately."

My friend said, "I'm for the UN and international law, and I think you've become a traitor to the left. A neocon!"

I said, "I'm for overthrowing tyrants, and since when did overthrowing fascism become treason to the left?"

"But isn't George Bush himself a fascist, more or less? I mean-admit it!"

My own eyes widened. "You haven't the foggiest idea what fascism is," I said. "I always figured that a keen awareness of extreme oppression was the deepest trait of a left-wing heart. Mass graves, three hundred thousand missing Iraqis, a population crushed by thirty-five years of Baathist boots stomping on their faces-that is what fascism means! And you think that a few corrupt insider contracts with Bush's cronies at Halliburton and a bit of retrograde Bible-thumping and Bush's ridiculous tax cuts and his bonanzas for the super-rich are indistinguishable from that?-indistinguishable from fascism? From a politics of slaughter? Leftism is supposed to be a reality principle. Leftism is supposed to embody an ability to take in the big picture. The traitor to the left is you, my friend . . ."

But this already happened. This was from "A Friendly Drink in a Time of War," and was written by Paul Berman. Paul Berman is an angry liberal. Read the rest of it here.

In pieces from him and those like him, you'll likely see a serious critique of the "left" from the "left" but also a positive vision. Similarly, it may likely be too late to have much effect on this election, and while that in and of itself is (in the long run) perhaps a good thing, it seems time to start vetting these kinds of ideas, however flawed, and start getting their party's ideas up to snuff.

Shock or denial?

After a hiatus of a year and a half, I have rejoined the ranks of the romantically unattached. By all rights, I should be a blubbering ball of despair and self-pity, but some miraculous force has kept me from feeling too bad about my breakup. This might mean that I have unwillingly and subconsciously adopted the modern religion of the "healthy personality," where any real emotional connection to another human being is derided as "co-dependency," or it could mean that I'm in shock and denial, or it could mean that I'm relieved because somewhere deep down, I know that my relationship sucked.

In other news, I saw Terri Gross speak in Oxford, Ohio today as part of her book tour. She didn't look like I thought she would. It didn't do much for me, although I like her radio show.

Dump Kerry. Nominate This Guy...

Why would it be so hard for Kerry to say something like this:

U.S. Senate candidate Barack Obama suggested Friday that the United States one day might have to launch surgical missile strikes into Iran and Pakistan to keep extremists from getting control of nuclear bombs. . . .

Obama said that violent Islamic extremists are a vastly different brand of foe than was the Soviet Union during the Cold War, and they must be treated differently.

"With the Soviet Union, you did get the sense that they were operating on a model that we could comprehend in terms of, they don't want to be blown up, we don't want to be blown up, so you do game theory and calculate ways to contain," Obama said. "I think there are certain elements within the Islamic world right now that don't make those same calculations.

ebreathmints to come...

I heard about this new cell phone on npr and half thought it was a joke. Developed by a german company, it supposedly can sense users bad breath. I'm just waiting for the technology that would allow the person on the other end to experience the caller's smell. I'm imagining that, unless you have activated smellblock on your phone, your parents could call home during work and tell if your smoking "the pot." Being a closet conspiracy theorist, I think homeland security somehow has a hand in this. If you have my number, don't call me tonight. I'm surviving the wrath of hummus-aftermath.

hee haw from the south

Just recovering from the last dregs of ivan. Rain...that's it. As far as weather patterns go down here, it seems like rain clouds have a difficult time doing their thing. Lots of grey and wind and that ominous smell but then no release. It's like they need a laxative. Last night the movement finally happened. All-day rain climaxed in a flood watch here in Williamson County. Now I find myself forced to embrace the sun. back to you for the news...

Iraq and the type "A" personality

Hello,

I'm new to Ben's corner of the world, but he has been gracious enough to let me post. I initially wrote this article in Febuary of 04 (so alot of the troubles in Iraq that I mention may seem outdated, but when i wrote them, they didn't happen yet - e.g. al-Zarqawi's attacks), and have added minor revisions.

Note: I'm putting it under my magazine's name, because we haven't been published in a while...i've been busy with a screenplay.

Please let me know your thoughts. Thanks
-Geddy

JUICY Magazine® presents:

Empathy, Northern Iraq, and Sistani - The Iraqi Power Vacuum
by Geddy Patricks

Iraq: War Profiteering and Possible Civil War

What went wrong in Iraq? Is it just time? Will things turn around. If it's just a matter of time, then why have we lost over 1,000 troops? Nope, it's a quagmire and not going to get better any time soon.

Let's look back, maybe this will allow us to gain insight as to why problems persist.

Some of the best battlefield generals in history have contended that one of most successful ways to conquer your enemy is to put yourself in his or her skin. You must think like your enemy. Simple, right? This is a generalized and cliché tactic, yet extremely relevant and perfectly apt to fully understanding current events in Iraq.

To view the rest of this post please see the comments section...

snow boots

I would like to reiterate that Napolean Dynamite is a great, great movie. Napolean wears snowboots, plays tether ball, and dances real good.
I'm going to see Alien versus Predator tonight, and I'm all jacked up!!! I hope that Predator wins.
I'd like to soften my critique of Unitarian Universalism. It's not such a bad religion; it just needs a little love. I think the word "liberal" has become meaningless. The truth is, basically everybody in this country is liberal. Basically, everyone agrees that your sex, your race, your height, your odor, your ethnic background, your itchiness level, whatever, shouldn't keep you from having the same rights and responsibilities as everyone else. And, basically everyone agrees that people should be educated and should learn about lots of ideas so that they can pick the ones that seem most plausable. That, to me, is liberalism in its traditional sense. But, worldwide, liberalism still has a long way to go. Women are still horribly oppressed worldwide, free thought and education is stifled, and tribal/ethnic/racial/religious conflicts still run amok. UU, for all of its faults, is certainly a champion of liberalism. A little more liberalism in religion and a little less fundamentalism ain't so bad.

See B.S.

For the ultimate proof that mainstream media is both incredibly stupid and biased(except FoxNews -- they're just biased) go here for an incredibly simple and definitive proof that CBS accepted a document obviously produced in Word as as a genuine document produced 32 years ago.

Their only explanation...it's real, trust us.

Want somethin' to listen to?

Try KCRW, an NPR affiliate out of SoCal. More specifically, try Morning Becomes Eclectic, a show on KCRW. I just finished listening to a live performance by My Morning Jacket, from Louisville, KY. How do they sound, you ask? Well, they set up their recording studio in a grain silo, so in a word, big. Now I'm listening to Cat Power for the first time. Viva la musica!

UPDATE: I just got finished listening to the Eels, now I'm on to Belle & Sebastian... oh, and ignore that comment.

I have skills

I have a couple of comments. First, Napolean Dynamite is a really good movie...probably the best that I know of. Everyone should see it many times. Napolean has lots of skills, like drawing cool warriors, nun-chucks, bow-staff, all that.
Second, I'm trying to decide if I should stay in my Masters of Divinity program and try to be a Unitarian Universalist pastor, or drop out and go to IU instead to study public policy, I guess with the goal of some career in foreign policy. I like theology, philosophy, ethics, spirituality, etc. Thinking seriously about those things has pretty much been my bag for a long time, and I've been thinking about religious leadership for a long time too. But, I also have lots and lots of reservations about Unitarian Universalism, which at best is a creedless community that fosters and supports each individual's search for truth and meaning and at worst is a spiritually shallow club for rich, white, liberal self-absorption and self-congratulation that doesn't seem to recognize its own impotence in American culture, both religiously and politically. But, since I'm not Christian (at least not enough to feel comfortable in a Christian organization) or Jewish or Muslim or any other established tradition, UU is really all there is left.
Foreign Policy seems cool, because the U.S. government is the most powerful force on earth, and if I could help use that power to help poor and repressive countries develop economically and politically, or to intervene in horrible situations like Sudan, Rawanda, Bosnia, etc, that would be cool. I could do a lot more good than I would trying to connect some spoiled woman to her inner-goddess, or even in espousing some issue. (Hey UU's, it's great that you support gay marriage. Guess what? Nobody in Washington gives a shit what you think, cause there's only 250,000 of you in the world!) On the other hand, I'd probably have to deal with a lot of government bullshit, ithe biggest being that I'd have to support policies that I disagreed with.
Whatever. Somebody tell me what to do.
Joe

Pygmalion Effect

This year, as in the past, Republicans will portray us Democrats as embittered academics, desiccated Unitarians, whacked-out hippies and communards, people who talk to telephone poles, the party of the Deadheads.

Garrison, you make it too easy.

insight-less:

I have no idea what I'm doing right now.
Anyway, I have to tip my hat to W. He was pretty impressive last night. I think he even teared up a bit when he was talking about dead vets and Sept. 11 families. Kerry really needs to get his ass in gear.
On a side note, I'm beginning to wonder if maybe I'm a liberal republican instead of a moderate democrat. I'm pro-life, ambivalent about guns, relatively pro free-trade (with some reservations). On the other hand, I want all the gay folks to get married if they want to. On Iraq, I'm pissed that the country was manipulated and lied to, but I'm not sure if the war was good or bad in an objective, utilitarian sense. I think we should cooperate with other countries in our foreign policy, and I think we should concentrate more on global economic development and education rather than blowing up terrorists. That being said, I also want to blow Osama Bin Laden's balls off, and we need to do something about North Korea and Iran, especially Iran.
I like the idea of job training instead of complete welfare.
Then I have issues that neither party supports. Mainly drug policy reform. And I have issues that I think are important, but that I have no idea what to do about.
Maybe I'm a compassionate libertarian liberal neo-con wilsonian internationalist. Not to mention being an existentialist neo-orthodox mystic theist.
Joe

Sully's back from vacation

This guy is one of my favorite political writers around these days and this post, one of several made after a month long hiatus, deserves a look. As mentioned last night, I'm fully prepared to no longer pay attention to this Swiftvet business, and in an effort to do so this caught my eye. Then when readying myself for another day at work I found that the world is apparently a safer place these days, in terms of large scale conflict anyway. Funny that, I'll have to blame my agoraphobia on something else, but good to know.

Go firedance!

Let's get entranced by their... I'm watching the closing ceremonies for the Olympics. I will probably remember this for the gypsies running around behind the pick-up filled with watermelons and the clowny-guy on the bike dragging cans.

Oh my. Jeff Jarvis from BuzzMachine makes a good point... "It's a decent debate [referring to a discussion on his site regarding healthcare]. I said I hoped that we could devote our breath and bandwidth to something useful, like the healthcare debate, instead of useless, like the Swifties and the Mooreites, and, voila, given a real subject that really matters there is real debate. I'm relieved."

David Brooks has this long and very worth-while piece from the NYT Magazine about the evolution of conservatism.

I frankly have heard enough of and from the swifties to make some decisions. I don't appreciate how the parties involved posed and answered questions. Spinsanity offers some analysis (that seems strong) how both of these sets of folks are being dishonest enough to compromise the integrity of their message. And I'd like to see a more comprehensive answer to some of the legitimate questions facing Kerry, i.e., what's up with this "V" stuff and how much hype is too much?

I've got enough to work with in order to decide, lets get to some substantive debate. Here's a good segway: Which one of these jokers is going to make a move at our rights to say what we want, when we want, and how we want? This is the kind of stuff I want deciding the election, sure the rest of it (the character stuff for example) all enters into the equation, but I want what truly matters to take take precedence in forming the debate.

Bush's Web of Deceit

Proof from the Kerry camp that Bush is really in control of the Swift Vets and....Kevin Bacon

I'm a member of slow skateboards for falsehood. John Kerry did not pull off the 720.
Joe

Swift-Vet Impact

At this point I think most open minded people believe that neither Kerry nor the Swift Vets recollections of Kerry’s brief period in Vietnam are entirely accurate. Time may reveal one or the other as having more veracity, but it seems unlikely either side will be able to completely discredit the other within the timeframe of this election. While this means it’s unlikely the Swift Vets will be able to turn Kerry’s military service into a negative, it does effectively neutralize the “crown jewel” issue for the Kerry Campaign. Without his Vietnam achievements, Kerry is little more than a uniquely unaccomplished 4 term Democratic Senator from a particularly Democrat friendly state who knows how to speak French and windsurf. This will force him to run on the issues and his legislative record which for a Senator who doesn’t seem to believe in anything other than John Forbes Kerry will make it difficult to counter a Bush campaign that seems to have regained its momentum. The completely foreseeable, preventable Dukakis-Snoopy/Dean-Scream moment for this campaign may have been during the Democratic convention when “Lieutenant Kerry report[ed] for Duty”. It was Kerry’s compulsion for self-aggrandizement that made it inevitable.

Eggers in Beantown

If you can go, you should.

Dave Eggers Tourdates.

Sunday, August 29

CAMBRIDGE, MA

Wordsworth Books

30 Brattle St. Harvard Square

With Christopher Monks and Kurt Luchs.

7:00 p.m. and Kurt Luchs.7:00 p.m.

Weird ends

Neal Stephenson, author of several science fiction-ish opus's as quoted in Locus Magazine: “The analogy (which I've used a lot before) is to the electric guitar. Thomas Edison made electricity into a consumer product and developed the light bulb, probably anticipated washing machines and stuff, but he sure didn't anticipate the electric guitar! That was far too weird of an idea. No one could have predicted that the descendants of slaves could have adopted this and come up with what would become the dominant form of popular music in the whole world. That's the kind of thing real societies do with real technology. One of the things [William] Gibson has achieved is that he put some of that into his world. We've got information technology. How is it going to be used, not just by engineers who design products but by regular people who pick this stuff up and turn it to their own weird ends? Spam is another thing kind of like the electric guitar, though it's much darker, less palatable. Clearly the people who originated the technology never in their wildest dreams could have imagined that everyone on Earth who has e-mail would get 30 penis enlargement advertisements a day!”

Similarly we have the blogosphere (I find that term kinda goofy, but 'in the parlance of our times'...) as part of the internet, morphing from your average weblog/online diary sort of thing to a tool that seems to be taking on that somewhat antiquated/monolithic form of information distribution, in the "media". The Belmont Club makes an apt comparison: "Yet for good or ill, the genie is out of the bottle. Before the Gutenberg printing press men knew the contents of the Bible solely through the prism of the professional clergy, who could alone afford the expensively hand copied books and who exclusively interpreted it. But when technology made books widely available, men could read the sacred texts for themselves and form their own opinions. And the world was never the same again."

For most of us Bloggin' is pretty much a really fast and convient way to get ideas out of our heads so they can play with others. Now I'm talking to the contributers mostly, but this should go for everyone. If you've got a story, tell it. If you have a thought or point of view you want to vet, get it up here and see what happens. In the words of the immortal Lucas of "Lucas with the Lid off" fame: "Whatever bubbles, bubbles up". One way or another this blog should meet it's weird (bubbly) end.

FactChecking the Swiftvets

I would really like Kerry's people to come out with something as persuasive as this or this (relates to most recent SwiftVet ad), instead of layering on equally annoying counter-offensives that advocate the numbing of first amendment rights.

But then there are quibbles with the factchecking so who knows? In the end it seems that this bit should be a campaign aside, yes Kerry is staking his relevancy as candidate on his war record, but so is Bush. Which of these wars should be more important now?

Yglesias breakdown of swiftvet ad

Here is a take on the whole Swiftboatvet's ad campaign. It seems reasonable to say that not all of the groups out there creating partisan ads are going about them the same way and the only spots that should carry weight are those that actually make it to TV, their intended destination. If that is the standard (I'm open to argument), Moveon.org doesn't share that much in common with the swifties aside from creating partisan ads. However a good portion of this mess could be solved by Kerry actually releasing his full records