See pictures of the protesters in Tehran defying the armed Basiq militia.
That's bravery. I am looking at these protesters, and first of all they are unarmed. Their hands are not even clinched in fists. Second, they're not in the slightest way physically intimidating. They look like pleasant people you might meet at a dinner party.
Friday, July 10, 2009
Thursday, July 9, 2009
Ancient Roman Triumphal Columns
I was reading along in one of my favorite books, "Life in Ancient Rome: People and Places," by Nigel Rodgers, a lavishly illustrated coffee table piece, when I was struck in the face by...I hesitate to say.
Instead, let me quote from page 70, the beginning of a chapter entitled "Triumphal Columns":
The accompanying photo of Trajan's column looks like nothing so much as a penis. Phallic symbols were customary throughout the ancient city of Rome. So I believe the similarity in appearance is intentional.
This got me to thinking. Could war just be an exercise in penis comparison, as the comedian George Carlin famously said? I think so. Other than Boudica, there aren't many women on the record as having begun wars of conquest, and in the case of Boudica, she had ample provocation.
Instead, let me quote from page 70, the beginning of a chapter entitled "Triumphal Columns":
Commemorative or triumphal columns celebrated great individuals, especially military men. The Romans, like the Greeks or Egyptians, were passionate about perpetuating their fame by the most durable means available, but the idea of erecting marble columns topped by bronze or marble statues seems to have been a wholly Roman one...
...Columns known as columnae rostratae were erected from the 3rd century BC... By the 2nd century BC, relatively small columns celebrating successful Republican nobles' exploits were being erected...
The accompanying photo of Trajan's column looks like nothing so much as a penis. Phallic symbols were customary throughout the ancient city of Rome. So I believe the similarity in appearance is intentional.
This got me to thinking. Could war just be an exercise in penis comparison, as the comedian George Carlin famously said? I think so. Other than Boudica, there aren't many women on the record as having begun wars of conquest, and in the case of Boudica, she had ample provocation.
Load Your Browser Upon Booting
Nowadays, most of us use our PC for only one task on a daily basis--surfing the Internet. Non-internet applications comprise but a small portion of our activities. It makes sense, therefore, to load the default browser at startup. That way, you can press the "On" button for your PC, walk away to get yourself a cup of tea, and your browser will be ready and waiting for you when you get back.
This is easy enough to do in Windows XP. In Windows Explorer, navigate to C:\Documents and Settings\{whatever your username is}\Start Menu\Programs\Startup. In that directory, create a shortcut to your Internet browser. Presto! From now on, when your computer boots, it will load your Internet browser.
This is how every computer in the civilized world should be configured. It is simply ridiculous that people continue to click on a browser each and every time that they boot their PC. Why do it? You know you're going to surf the Net.
Be sure to construct your own home page, as well. That will save the lion's share of both time and aggravation.
This is easy enough to do in Windows XP. In Windows Explorer, navigate to C:\Documents and Settings\{whatever your username is}\Start Menu\Programs\Startup. In that directory, create a shortcut to your Internet browser. Presto! From now on, when your computer boots, it will load your Internet browser.
This is how every computer in the civilized world should be configured. It is simply ridiculous that people continue to click on a browser each and every time that they boot their PC. Why do it? You know you're going to surf the Net.
Be sure to construct your own home page, as well. That will save the lion's share of both time and aggravation.
Wednesday, July 8, 2009
The Defense of Marriage Act is an Abomination
The 1996 DOMA represents a blight upon the legacy of Clinton. Yes, worse than Lewinsky.
Passed with near-unanimous Republican support, the DOMA institutionalizes homophobia. It categorically denies federal recognition of gay marriages that have already received legal recognition by a state such as Massachusetts, which permits gay marriage. This means gays are denied Social Security benefits, retirement benefits, health care benefits, federal income tax credits and everything else.
I applaud the decision by the Massachusetts Attorney General to challenge the constitutionality of DOMA. Now is the time to strike down this terrible law, which is based upon the same ignorance that we have come to associate with the Republican Party, which is wrong on all of the issues across the board.
How is it fair that a worker should pay taxes into the Social Security system his entire life, and upon his death, his spouse never receives a cent of Social Security benefits? How does this promote social stability?
The "Defense of Marriage Act" should be renamed "The Discouragement of Marriage Act." Why on earth should we want to deter people from forming a long-term, monogamous relationship?
Bob Barr (R-Ga) was the bigot who wrote and sponsored "The Defense of Marriage Act," although he has since changed his mind and expressed regret over it. Regardless, for that one act, I wouldn't vote for Bob Barr for dogcatcher, and the number of Republicans I have voted for since 1996 can be counted on one hand. Bob Barr has expressed regret for many things he said and did during his time in power and has even come out in favor of decriminalizing marijuana, but now that he is out of power, all of that seems moot. The tears of a repentant criminal pale next to the real suffering of his victims.
Old Bob Barr was one of the key factors that turned me off, for life, from the Republican Party and conservatives in general. He promoted legislation that had a direct negative impact on my personal life. I was under the impression that Bob Barr was an emissary from Satan, sent to promote evil in the world, and Bob certainly gave everyone that impression. He took glee in hijacking the U.S. Congress during the late 1990s so that nothing could be discussed save issues relating to Clinton's extramarital affair with Monica Lewinsky. I remember the television news had nothing besides the affair--nothing in the world was deemed as important as a sperm-stained blue dress. The whole ordeal was sickening. Now even though that was an unpleasant experience for the whole country (thanks, Bob, for prolonging that mess), contrast it against the Bush Administration with their insane Iraq war. With the Democrats, you get sex scandals; so what. With the Republicans, war and economic devastation.
Bob Barr basked in the attention he received from all quarters as the "attack dog" of the Republican Party. Meanwhile, he worked to pass the "Defense of Marriage Act" which was a slap to every gay American. Millions of us now face a life without Social Security benefits, without numerous benefits that our heterosexual colleagues take as a matter of course.
If you're straight, you can do whatever you please, however you please, and at the end of your days, your partner gets everything coming to him or her from the U.S. government. That's as it should be. But an equal protection can't be extended to gays because of one man, Bob Barr, and his evil law. I understand that he regrets that law, and he should, because it has caused hardship for many Americans. It's just another pointless cruelty of the type that Republicans like to revel in.
I suppose the bigots receive pleasure by imagining all the hardships caused by DOMA. But you know what? The bigots are the ones that don't deserve to live in a country like America. Their great hope died in 1945 in a bunker in Berlin of a self-inflicted gunshot wound to the head. Let that be a lesson to bigots around the world, as to where their philosophy ultimately leads. A loaded gun, enemies all around, and a decision as to what to do next. Their great idol took the path of least resistance rather than rising up from his bunker to face the music. In the end, the haters are all cowards, meriting nothing but contempt.
Passed with near-unanimous Republican support, the DOMA institutionalizes homophobia. It categorically denies federal recognition of gay marriages that have already received legal recognition by a state such as Massachusetts, which permits gay marriage. This means gays are denied Social Security benefits, retirement benefits, health care benefits, federal income tax credits and everything else.
I applaud the decision by the Massachusetts Attorney General to challenge the constitutionality of DOMA. Now is the time to strike down this terrible law, which is based upon the same ignorance that we have come to associate with the Republican Party, which is wrong on all of the issues across the board.
How is it fair that a worker should pay taxes into the Social Security system his entire life, and upon his death, his spouse never receives a cent of Social Security benefits? How does this promote social stability?
The "Defense of Marriage Act" should be renamed "The Discouragement of Marriage Act." Why on earth should we want to deter people from forming a long-term, monogamous relationship?
Bob Barr (R-Ga) was the bigot who wrote and sponsored "The Defense of Marriage Act," although he has since changed his mind and expressed regret over it. Regardless, for that one act, I wouldn't vote for Bob Barr for dogcatcher, and the number of Republicans I have voted for since 1996 can be counted on one hand. Bob Barr has expressed regret for many things he said and did during his time in power and has even come out in favor of decriminalizing marijuana, but now that he is out of power, all of that seems moot. The tears of a repentant criminal pale next to the real suffering of his victims.
Old Bob Barr was one of the key factors that turned me off, for life, from the Republican Party and conservatives in general. He promoted legislation that had a direct negative impact on my personal life. I was under the impression that Bob Barr was an emissary from Satan, sent to promote evil in the world, and Bob certainly gave everyone that impression. He took glee in hijacking the U.S. Congress during the late 1990s so that nothing could be discussed save issues relating to Clinton's extramarital affair with Monica Lewinsky. I remember the television news had nothing besides the affair--nothing in the world was deemed as important as a sperm-stained blue dress. The whole ordeal was sickening. Now even though that was an unpleasant experience for the whole country (thanks, Bob, for prolonging that mess), contrast it against the Bush Administration with their insane Iraq war. With the Democrats, you get sex scandals; so what. With the Republicans, war and economic devastation.
Bob Barr basked in the attention he received from all quarters as the "attack dog" of the Republican Party. Meanwhile, he worked to pass the "Defense of Marriage Act" which was a slap to every gay American. Millions of us now face a life without Social Security benefits, without numerous benefits that our heterosexual colleagues take as a matter of course.
If you're straight, you can do whatever you please, however you please, and at the end of your days, your partner gets everything coming to him or her from the U.S. government. That's as it should be. But an equal protection can't be extended to gays because of one man, Bob Barr, and his evil law. I understand that he regrets that law, and he should, because it has caused hardship for many Americans. It's just another pointless cruelty of the type that Republicans like to revel in.
I suppose the bigots receive pleasure by imagining all the hardships caused by DOMA. But you know what? The bigots are the ones that don't deserve to live in a country like America. Their great hope died in 1945 in a bunker in Berlin of a self-inflicted gunshot wound to the head. Let that be a lesson to bigots around the world, as to where their philosophy ultimately leads. A loaded gun, enemies all around, and a decision as to what to do next. Their great idol took the path of least resistance rather than rising up from his bunker to face the music. In the end, the haters are all cowards, meriting nothing but contempt.
Monday, July 6, 2009
Catherine Tate: Another Great Show from the UK
I've recently discovered a superb new comedy from the UK, The Catherine Tate Show. Much different from my other favorite, Peep Show, this show features a strong female lead and POV--Tate stars in every skit.
Catherine Tate is the best comedic actor (or actress) from the UK that I have seen so far. She's head and shoulders above my former favorites, Mitchell and Webb.
Catherine Tate's humor has a more innocent and apolitical character than Peep Show or That Mitchell and Webb Look. The writing isn't terribly sophisticated. In fact, I'd wager she writes the material herself.
Catherine Tate knows how to win over an audience and have them eating from the palm of her hand. Whether her material is funny or not, she makes it funny with the strange magic that she has. She may be a witch. At any rate, Mitchell and Webb require excellent material to be funny. Catherine Tate doesn't require anything at all. She just has to assume one of her odd, quirky characters and she gets plenty of laughs.
Catherine Tate is the best comedic actor (or actress) from the UK that I have seen so far. She's head and shoulders above my former favorites, Mitchell and Webb.
Catherine Tate's humor has a more innocent and apolitical character than Peep Show or That Mitchell and Webb Look. The writing isn't terribly sophisticated. In fact, I'd wager she writes the material herself.
Catherine Tate knows how to win over an audience and have them eating from the palm of her hand. Whether her material is funny or not, she makes it funny with the strange magic that she has. She may be a witch. At any rate, Mitchell and Webb require excellent material to be funny. Catherine Tate doesn't require anything at all. She just has to assume one of her odd, quirky characters and she gets plenty of laughs.
Friday, July 3, 2009
Reevaluating World War I
In a previous blog entry, I found World War 2 to be the most, and possibly the only, justified war in American history.
After watching a lengthy documentary on World War 1, I am persuaded that World War 1 had as much justification as World War 2.
In both cases, the indisputable villain, the instigator of the dreadful world wars, was the nation of Germany, the aggressor and invader. In both wars, Germany invaded and occupied Belgium, a neutral nation, without provocation, committing atrocities and causing great loss of life in the process. Had German forces remained in Germany, the verdict of history might be different, but the majority of the war was fought on the soil of countries that the Germans invaded. The loss of life was extreme for all nations concerned and the psychological effects, incalculable. Germany brought great evil into the world with their wars. It makes one wonder whether the world might have been a better place without Germany ever having existed.
In both wars, the United States was attacked first. In both cases, Germany engaged in unrestricted submarine warfare, which imperils neutral commerce and civilians. Germany's strategic goals at the time are irrelevant; the ethical issue prevails, and condemns them for all time.
Germany went so far during World War 1 as to promise Mexico territory in the United States, including Texas and California, in the infamous Zimmerman Telegram.
I was often taught in school that the Allies were vicious in the Versailles Treaty, which punished Germany with massive fines and restrictions on the size of their armaments. After learning more about World War 1, I am persuaded that the Versailles Treaty did not go nearly far enough. Permanent military occupation of all of Germany would at least have prevented the second world war. The young corporal Adolf Hitler could have become one of the political prisoners of the Allies, writing his mad screeds against Jews in solitary confinement in a maximum security prison located in Alaska. The largest beneficiaries of such a draconian policy would have been Germans, who would have been spared the millions of casualties of the next great conflict. But the Allies, battered and exhausted by the war, had no stomach for a continuation of militarism.
The world wars changed America in ways that were unfortunate. Ever since the world wars, our people have in general entertained a favorable opinion of foreign intervention and a crusader mentality--not to be confused with "crusader" in the sense of medieval Christian crusaders, but rather crusader in the sense of idealism, a belief in democratic principles. This sort of enthusiasm can exceed the bounds of caution, as seen by our present-day entanglement in Iraq and Afghanistan, places where democratic principles are unlikely to thrive due to the indigenous culture and history. Persia and Mesopotamia have no history of democracy. Ancient Persians bowed to the ground and kissed the dirt before their Emperors, who were treated as Gods, with absolute authority. A Persian Emperor could, and often did slay or torture subordinates for little or no reason. Contrast the abject submission of the ancient Persian with the attitude of the Greeks, whose free male citizens voted on the issues of the day. Overall, the culture of the Middle Easterners has produced fanaticism, repression, war, and oppression. For an example, look no further than Turkey during World War 1. The reaction of Turkey, upon being attacked by the English, was to assume automatically that the war was against Islam. With that irrational notion rattling about in their tiny brains, they turned upon the Christian minority in their midst, the Armenians, and committed genocide.
After watching a lengthy documentary on World War 1, I am persuaded that World War 1 had as much justification as World War 2.
In both cases, the indisputable villain, the instigator of the dreadful world wars, was the nation of Germany, the aggressor and invader. In both wars, Germany invaded and occupied Belgium, a neutral nation, without provocation, committing atrocities and causing great loss of life in the process. Had German forces remained in Germany, the verdict of history might be different, but the majority of the war was fought on the soil of countries that the Germans invaded. The loss of life was extreme for all nations concerned and the psychological effects, incalculable. Germany brought great evil into the world with their wars. It makes one wonder whether the world might have been a better place without Germany ever having existed.
In both wars, the United States was attacked first. In both cases, Germany engaged in unrestricted submarine warfare, which imperils neutral commerce and civilians. Germany's strategic goals at the time are irrelevant; the ethical issue prevails, and condemns them for all time.
Germany went so far during World War 1 as to promise Mexico territory in the United States, including Texas and California, in the infamous Zimmerman Telegram.
I was often taught in school that the Allies were vicious in the Versailles Treaty, which punished Germany with massive fines and restrictions on the size of their armaments. After learning more about World War 1, I am persuaded that the Versailles Treaty did not go nearly far enough. Permanent military occupation of all of Germany would at least have prevented the second world war. The young corporal Adolf Hitler could have become one of the political prisoners of the Allies, writing his mad screeds against Jews in solitary confinement in a maximum security prison located in Alaska. The largest beneficiaries of such a draconian policy would have been Germans, who would have been spared the millions of casualties of the next great conflict. But the Allies, battered and exhausted by the war, had no stomach for a continuation of militarism.
The world wars changed America in ways that were unfortunate. Ever since the world wars, our people have in general entertained a favorable opinion of foreign intervention and a crusader mentality--not to be confused with "crusader" in the sense of medieval Christian crusaders, but rather crusader in the sense of idealism, a belief in democratic principles. This sort of enthusiasm can exceed the bounds of caution, as seen by our present-day entanglement in Iraq and Afghanistan, places where democratic principles are unlikely to thrive due to the indigenous culture and history. Persia and Mesopotamia have no history of democracy. Ancient Persians bowed to the ground and kissed the dirt before their Emperors, who were treated as Gods, with absolute authority. A Persian Emperor could, and often did slay or torture subordinates for little or no reason. Contrast the abject submission of the ancient Persian with the attitude of the Greeks, whose free male citizens voted on the issues of the day. Overall, the culture of the Middle Easterners has produced fanaticism, repression, war, and oppression. For an example, look no further than Turkey during World War 1. The reaction of Turkey, upon being attacked by the English, was to assume automatically that the war was against Islam. With that irrational notion rattling about in their tiny brains, they turned upon the Christian minority in their midst, the Armenians, and committed genocide.
Essential Windows Utilities
When attacking Windows problems, one should have these utilities at one's disposal.
Macintosh users may laugh and point out they require no such tools. They may be right, but I paid a fraction of the price they paid for their Mac. For the price of one Mac, I can build two fully functional PC systems. This has long been true and is the only reason that I use a PC today. And when parts give out, I replace them. Replacing any single part on a Mac can be quite expensive. My rule of thumb, based upon price comparisons I have done in the past, is that any Mac part costs twice or thrice the price of a comparable PC part, and usually represents a step backward in technology, having less speed or less capability.
I recommend that every Windows PC user download and install the following:
Macintosh users may laugh and point out they require no such tools. They may be right, but I paid a fraction of the price they paid for their Mac. For the price of one Mac, I can build two fully functional PC systems. This has long been true and is the only reason that I use a PC today. And when parts give out, I replace them. Replacing any single part on a Mac can be quite expensive. My rule of thumb, based upon price comparisons I have done in the past, is that any Mac part costs twice or thrice the price of a comparable PC part, and usually represents a step backward in technology, having less speed or less capability.
I recommend that every Windows PC user download and install the following:
- Infrarecorder is my open-source choice for CD/DVD burning.
- Notepad++ is a powerful replacement for Microsoft's lame text editor, Notepad.
- TrendMicro's HijackThis reveals all processes and memory-resident apps that are loaded in Windows. This is essential for ridding Windows of useless and obsolete memory-hogging crapware and checking for possible trojan horses.
- MyDefrag should be run once per month in order to defragment all of the files on a hard drive. In badly fragmented hard drives, a huge performance increase can be realized by running this utility. Some technophiles believe that fragmentation is no longer an issue worthy of concern, due to the high speed and large cache of modern hard drives. They are mistaken.
- Crap Cleaner is not really essential, but is useful. It disposes of accumulated junk files that Windows sometimes leaves lying around. I like to run Crap Cleaner prior to defragging my hard drive.
- SMPlayer is one of the best all-around video players, although for .mp3's it seems inferior to WinAmp. What's great about SMPlayer is that it will play just about anything. It also has a solid set of features, such as frame-by-frame advance, slow motion, skip forward, and skip backward. It can even remember settings for individual video files. If you stop a video and then resume it later, it picks up where you left off.
- Avast Anti-Virus seems to work pretty well against viruses and their online forum is alive and thriving, with many learned technophiles available to help users with their problems. I believe that Avast is superior to other anti-virus packages, despite being free for home users. I have had bad experiences with Norton anti-virus. In some ways, Norton is as bad as having an actual spyware infection, because of potential conflicts with other programs. A few months into my subscription, my Norton anti-virus decided to stop its automatic update process, and after that I had to manually update it about once a month by logging into their web site, downloading the update package, and executing it. That was a thankless chore and led me to question the wisdom of paying for an anti-virus package.
- Foxit Reader offers a minimal alternative to Adobe's enormous and cumbersome .pdf file reader. If you would prefer not to wait ten seconds in order to read a .pdf file and then be queried as to whether you wish to update the latest Adobe thing, use Foxit.
- Color Cop is essential for anyone who maintains any type of web site or blog. With it, you can select colors without hazarding guesses as to the results of hexadecimal numbers. If "F0F0F0" means nothing to you, install Color Cop. A neat little feature is the ability to borrow color combinations from existing applications.
- Firefox remains the browser to beat. The strength of Firefox lies in the many useful add-ons. I have never had any reason to doubt that it is a more secure browser than IE.
- ACDSee is a handy little photo viewer and editor, probably the best in its class, superior to the freeware products FastStone and Irfanview. Users of Adobe Photoshop, which is technically superior at editing photos, should understand that a market niche exists just below Adobe Photoshop. Users desire a lean, fast, cheap application for viewing and editing photo albums. Adobe Photoshop cannot compete here, because of its cost and cumbersome nature. However, Adobe Photoshop is the right choice when extensive editing is required, because ACDSee is quite limited in what it can do. Relative to its competitors, Irfanview and Faststone, which are free, ACDSee is quite expensive, and the annual update from version to version introduces few major new features. For those users that already own a copy of ACDSee, it is probably not worth upgrading to a new version. Their upgrade terms are not generous. Also, the program does crash on the rare occasion for no apparent reason, and patches or fixes are nowhere to be found. The only remedy is to buy the next version and hope for the best, something I have chosen not to do.
Wednesday, July 1, 2009
More About Honduras
Call me skeptical about the story emanating from the political establishment in Honduras, as reported in The New York Times.
The entire political establishment appears united behind the military takeover.
At first, I was impressed by the fact that both the Honduran Congress and the Honduran Supreme Court were united in opposing the former President Zelaya. In addition to this, the military commanders seemed to behave in moderation, avoiding the spilling of blood, and refraining from unnecessary brutality, at least insofar as being reported by the world media. The continued survival and freedom of Zelaya also demonstrates moderation by the military.
However, the Honduran Supreme Court and Congress might not be the equivalent of the U.S. Supreme Court and Congress. How good is a Supreme Court, anyway? It really depends upon which political faction has managed to stack the balance of the justices. The U.S. Supreme Court has proven itself to be a haven for political idealogues who are the farthest thing from neutrality and concern themselves with more than issues of law, treading into issues of policy. The quality of a Congress depends upon the gerrymandering of the electoral districts and the degree of influence played by money.
Then came universal condemnation of the military coup from almost all conscientious nations of the world. When Obama's voice was added to the chorus, I knew that there must be more to this story than meets the eye.
I was unfamiliar with Honduras in general, and knew nothing about Honduran politics, so I visited Wikipedia and looked up Zelaya as a starting point. What I read there seems to point a finger at the Honduran right-wingers.
Concerning Honduras, I do not understand the merit of having a Constitution, as they do, that has provisions that are self-defending, insofar as they can never be amended or altered.
The authors of the unalterable law may themselves all be dead. Are the dictates of the dead to be defended by the living against the living? Is this not irrational behavior?
Although we revere our deceased ancestors to an extent, I doubt many of us would sacrifice our own well-being in order to appease their imagined preferences.
The entire political establishment appears united behind the military takeover.
At first, I was impressed by the fact that both the Honduran Congress and the Honduran Supreme Court were united in opposing the former President Zelaya. In addition to this, the military commanders seemed to behave in moderation, avoiding the spilling of blood, and refraining from unnecessary brutality, at least insofar as being reported by the world media. The continued survival and freedom of Zelaya also demonstrates moderation by the military.
However, the Honduran Supreme Court and Congress might not be the equivalent of the U.S. Supreme Court and Congress. How good is a Supreme Court, anyway? It really depends upon which political faction has managed to stack the balance of the justices. The U.S. Supreme Court has proven itself to be a haven for political idealogues who are the farthest thing from neutrality and concern themselves with more than issues of law, treading into issues of policy. The quality of a Congress depends upon the gerrymandering of the electoral districts and the degree of influence played by money.
Then came universal condemnation of the military coup from almost all conscientious nations of the world. When Obama's voice was added to the chorus, I knew that there must be more to this story than meets the eye.
I was unfamiliar with Honduras in general, and knew nothing about Honduran politics, so I visited Wikipedia and looked up Zelaya as a starting point. What I read there seems to point a finger at the Honduran right-wingers.
Concerning Honduras, I do not understand the merit of having a Constitution, as they do, that has provisions that are self-defending, insofar as they can never be amended or altered.
The authors of the unalterable law may themselves all be dead. Are the dictates of the dead to be defended by the living against the living? Is this not irrational behavior?
Although we revere our deceased ancestors to an extent, I doubt many of us would sacrifice our own well-being in order to appease their imagined preferences.
Saturday, June 27, 2009
The Greenhouse Gas Emissions Bill
Whether the Cap and Trade Bill is good or bad hinges upon a single question, which is scientific and not political in nature.
Does human activity comprise a major component in the production of greenhouse gases?
Most scientists say yes.
Republicans seem to think otherwise, and they cite a few scientists here and there that support their position.
I find it an unlikely coincidence that global warming has suddenly come upon the radar so soon following the Industrial Revolution and that its severity is increasing at such a rapid pace.
It is indisputable that the human population has increased exponentially in the past several hundred years, and that our race has reshaped the planet Earth, eliminating vast swaths of forest and jungle, and contributing to desertification in many areas, and adding vast amounts of exhaust gases, not just carbon dioxide, to the atmosphere.
If there is even a one percent chance that the majority of scientists are correct, then that would favor intervention by all governments on Earth, in order to protect future generations of human beings.
By finding alternatives to fossil fuels, we will also diminish the threats posed by dangerous regimes, many of which receive revenue from oil.
Even if the cost of Cap and Trade rose to such an enormous sum as a trillion dollars, then it still would be a bargain, compared to the costs of the Iraq and Afghanistan wars.
The Bill may even be a case of "too little, too late" at this stage, but at least it represents an attempt at doing what should have been done years ago.
You cannot persuade a conservative Republican about global warming. They want their wars, their bombings, and their prisons. Nothing else matters to them but violence, conflict, and money. They would gladly sacrifice both the East and the West coast of the United States, if only to have more wars. It is what they live for. If future generations are to die by the hundreds of millions, too bad.
Republicans take pleasure in the notion that "their tribe" will survive the catastrophes. What is "their tribe"? The wealthy, who will construct fortified compounds in mountainous regions, away from vulnerable coastlines. To the upper-class Republicans, global warming brings good tidings, washing away the impoverished and dusky races of the planet.
However, the consequences of global warming may not be predictable. The damage may not be confined to coastlines.
A planet with weather as mild and temperate as ours is uncommon, both in our Solar System and elsewhere, as we continue to discover.
Playing a dangerous game of "chicken" with the environment is not a gamble that is worth taking.
Whereas Bin Laden was a gnat in need of swatting, global warming is a dragon set to devour the human race. Republicans have squandered our nation's treasure in swatting a gnat, while turning their back upon a dragon.
Does human activity comprise a major component in the production of greenhouse gases?
Most scientists say yes.
Republicans seem to think otherwise, and they cite a few scientists here and there that support their position.
I find it an unlikely coincidence that global warming has suddenly come upon the radar so soon following the Industrial Revolution and that its severity is increasing at such a rapid pace.
It is indisputable that the human population has increased exponentially in the past several hundred years, and that our race has reshaped the planet Earth, eliminating vast swaths of forest and jungle, and contributing to desertification in many areas, and adding vast amounts of exhaust gases, not just carbon dioxide, to the atmosphere.
If there is even a one percent chance that the majority of scientists are correct, then that would favor intervention by all governments on Earth, in order to protect future generations of human beings.
By finding alternatives to fossil fuels, we will also diminish the threats posed by dangerous regimes, many of which receive revenue from oil.
Even if the cost of Cap and Trade rose to such an enormous sum as a trillion dollars, then it still would be a bargain, compared to the costs of the Iraq and Afghanistan wars.
The Bill may even be a case of "too little, too late" at this stage, but at least it represents an attempt at doing what should have been done years ago.
You cannot persuade a conservative Republican about global warming. They want their wars, their bombings, and their prisons. Nothing else matters to them but violence, conflict, and money. They would gladly sacrifice both the East and the West coast of the United States, if only to have more wars. It is what they live for. If future generations are to die by the hundreds of millions, too bad.
Republicans take pleasure in the notion that "their tribe" will survive the catastrophes. What is "their tribe"? The wealthy, who will construct fortified compounds in mountainous regions, away from vulnerable coastlines. To the upper-class Republicans, global warming brings good tidings, washing away the impoverished and dusky races of the planet.
However, the consequences of global warming may not be predictable. The damage may not be confined to coastlines.
A planet with weather as mild and temperate as ours is uncommon, both in our Solar System and elsewhere, as we continue to discover.
Playing a dangerous game of "chicken" with the environment is not a gamble that is worth taking.
Whereas Bin Laden was a gnat in need of swatting, global warming is a dragon set to devour the human race. Republicans have squandered our nation's treasure in swatting a gnat, while turning their back upon a dragon.
Who was Sauron?
Sauron is a fascinating villain, all the more because he never makes an appearance in the main three books of "The Lord of the Rings." For those that are curious, I will reveal the following about this fell spirit, which derives from "The Simarillion."
Tolkien was a Catholic Christian, and the theology of "The Simarillion" bears much in common with classical Christian theology. If you have a familiarity with the legend of Satan, then you will better understand Sauron, whose name is by design similar.
In Tolkien's universe, there is an omnipotent, but not necessarily omniscient God by the name of Eru. There is also a Devil; there are two distinct and separate entities that filled that role at various times in the history of Middle Earth.
The first Devil, or Dark Lord, was Melkor, most powerful of the spirits created by Eru. When Melkor waged war upon Middle Earth, Sauron, a lesser spirit, served under him as a captain commanding legions of werewolves, vampires, orcs, and other fell monsters. Melkor was overthrown after many wars and imprisoned by the other great spirits or Vaya that served God (Eru). Sauron survived, however, and his power began to increase until he became the second and presumably last Dark Lord of Middle Earth.
The ultimate objective of a Dark Lord is to dominate all life upon Middle Earth in order to ruin Eru's creation. The motive for this remains unclear and appears to be based in irrational emotions rather than logic. A Dark Lord is possessed of an overwhelming desire to dominate and control all others. This is why one can draw a parallel between "The Lord of the Rings" and the fascists in certain governments like Iran, China, or Burma. Evil seeks to dominate and control at any costs.
If these fascists were rational and logical, they would understand that domination and control over others is not a proper end in itself. Instead, self-improvement, self-awareness, and cooperation and coexistence with others brings more benefits. This can be proven and has been proven to my satisfaction by thinkers such as Richard Dawkins. On a side note, South Park doesn't care much for Dawkins, by the way. He makes an appearance in a South Park episode, but only as a buffoon.
Happiness is not likely to come from a program of intimidation, aggression, cruelty, and brutality. Nor is scientific, literary, technological, or philosophical advancement likely to occur. Instead, evil begets more evil, and ignorance more ignorance. Creativity thrives in an environment of peace and freedom. If people are concerned over their safety and well-being, they are not likely to produce much of any worth, unless working in a factory producing widgets, and that certainly brings benefits in the short-term, but the future potential is quite limited.
This is why I believe that the leaders of Burma, Iran, and to a lesser extent China are shooting themselves in their respective feet. Their repressive policies are counter-productive. Instead of making their countries safer, their countries are rendered more vulnerable to every ill imaginable. When it is possible to openly acknowledge faults and shortcomings, a society can then take measures to address such problems. Where censorship is the law of the land, and freedom of speech is curtailed, then flaws persist in perpetuity, and any new flaws that arise also persist. In time, such a regime will sink under the weight of its own toxic environment. At any rate, why a fascist should want to live a nasty, brutish life fighting for the sake of pure evil, seems like madness.
Tolkien was a Catholic Christian, and the theology of "The Simarillion" bears much in common with classical Christian theology. If you have a familiarity with the legend of Satan, then you will better understand Sauron, whose name is by design similar.
In Tolkien's universe, there is an omnipotent, but not necessarily omniscient God by the name of Eru. There is also a Devil; there are two distinct and separate entities that filled that role at various times in the history of Middle Earth.
The first Devil, or Dark Lord, was Melkor, most powerful of the spirits created by Eru. When Melkor waged war upon Middle Earth, Sauron, a lesser spirit, served under him as a captain commanding legions of werewolves, vampires, orcs, and other fell monsters. Melkor was overthrown after many wars and imprisoned by the other great spirits or Vaya that served God (Eru). Sauron survived, however, and his power began to increase until he became the second and presumably last Dark Lord of Middle Earth.
The ultimate objective of a Dark Lord is to dominate all life upon Middle Earth in order to ruin Eru's creation. The motive for this remains unclear and appears to be based in irrational emotions rather than logic. A Dark Lord is possessed of an overwhelming desire to dominate and control all others. This is why one can draw a parallel between "The Lord of the Rings" and the fascists in certain governments like Iran, China, or Burma. Evil seeks to dominate and control at any costs.
If these fascists were rational and logical, they would understand that domination and control over others is not a proper end in itself. Instead, self-improvement, self-awareness, and cooperation and coexistence with others brings more benefits. This can be proven and has been proven to my satisfaction by thinkers such as Richard Dawkins. On a side note, South Park doesn't care much for Dawkins, by the way. He makes an appearance in a South Park episode, but only as a buffoon.
Happiness is not likely to come from a program of intimidation, aggression, cruelty, and brutality. Nor is scientific, literary, technological, or philosophical advancement likely to occur. Instead, evil begets more evil, and ignorance more ignorance. Creativity thrives in an environment of peace and freedom. If people are concerned over their safety and well-being, they are not likely to produce much of any worth, unless working in a factory producing widgets, and that certainly brings benefits in the short-term, but the future potential is quite limited.
This is why I believe that the leaders of Burma, Iran, and to a lesser extent China are shooting themselves in their respective feet. Their repressive policies are counter-productive. Instead of making their countries safer, their countries are rendered more vulnerable to every ill imaginable. When it is possible to openly acknowledge faults and shortcomings, a society can then take measures to address such problems. Where censorship is the law of the land, and freedom of speech is curtailed, then flaws persist in perpetuity, and any new flaws that arise also persist. In time, such a regime will sink under the weight of its own toxic environment. At any rate, why a fascist should want to live a nasty, brutish life fighting for the sake of pure evil, seems like madness.
Friday, June 26, 2009
Ancient Roman Epitaphs
I made a strange and delightful discovery today: ancient Roman epitaphs. These two were retrieved from the Isola Sacra cemetery:
I was inspired to look online for more Ancient Roman epitaphs from the cemetery at Isola Sacra, but all I can find online are hotels, resorts, and a few scholarly forums where archeologists chat with one another. What I was looking for was a comprehensive list of Isola Sacra epitaphs, such as was published by H. Thylander in 1952. I suppose this is one of those gotcha's on the Internet, where the subject matter is just too obscure to find any good material. Many scholars are discussing ancient epitaphs, but they never quote the epitaphs verbatim. Instead they write volumes analyzing and speculating on things, which I suppose is the nature of academia. I just wanted to read a long list of Ancient Roman epitaphs. The main attraction is that they are outside of our contemporary culture and either pre-Christian or primitive Christian--either way, of more interest than your usual cemetery, and even ordinary cemeteries are very interesting places to visit. Even when tombstones lack poetry or stories, the dates tell something, bringing to mind historical events that were contemporary to the dates.
"Here in my tomb I drain my cup more greedily, because here I must sleep and here must stay for ever."---
"May the passer-by who has seen these flowers and read this epitaph say to himself: 'This flower is Flavia's body.'"
-- "Life in Ancient Rome: People and Places," p.248, by Nigel Rodgers, published by Hermes House.
I was inspired to look online for more Ancient Roman epitaphs from the cemetery at Isola Sacra, but all I can find online are hotels, resorts, and a few scholarly forums where archeologists chat with one another. What I was looking for was a comprehensive list of Isola Sacra epitaphs, such as was published by H. Thylander in 1952. I suppose this is one of those gotcha's on the Internet, where the subject matter is just too obscure to find any good material. Many scholars are discussing ancient epitaphs, but they never quote the epitaphs verbatim. Instead they write volumes analyzing and speculating on things, which I suppose is the nature of academia. I just wanted to read a long list of Ancient Roman epitaphs. The main attraction is that they are outside of our contemporary culture and either pre-Christian or primitive Christian--either way, of more interest than your usual cemetery, and even ordinary cemeteries are very interesting places to visit. Even when tombstones lack poetry or stories, the dates tell something, bringing to mind historical events that were contemporary to the dates.
Avoid Prescription Drugs
There is speculation that Michael Jackson died of a prescription drug overdose.
If the pop star's death seems senseless, at least there is one positive note. Many people will receive the message that prescription pills are not safe.
Plenty of conservative, anti-drug types such as Rush Limbaugh get hooked on prescription drugs, thinking "these pills are okay, because my doctor prescribes them. They were tested by a major pharmaceutical company, and approved by the FDA. I know they won't harm me." In reality, you know nothing of the sort. Prescription drugs can and will harm you, sooner than you think.
Part of the philosophy expressed in my blog is to question authority, even medical authority. Doctors have been known to prescribe poison. Many of their potions are unnecessary and many have side effects. The entire list of prescription drugs implicated in Jackson's death has not been published yet, but three that were mentioned in the article above were Xanax, Zoloft and the painkiller Demerol. That sounds like a devil's brew to me.
Xanax is prescribed when people complain about trouble sleeping or anxiety. It is a subtle sedative. I am ignorant about this drug and am not sure of its safety, but feel skepticism, because Xanax has only been around for a generation, and was designed for one purpose: to enhance shareholder wealth for a pharmaceutical company. Prescription drugs have no other purpose.
On the other hand, passionflower and valerian root have been tried and tested for centuries, being herbal folk remedies for insomnia and anxiety. No one will be getting rich if you try these things, and therefore no one has an ulterior motive for suggesting that you try them. Therefore I suggest following in Grandfather's footsteps and brewing a nice hot cup of passionflower and valerian root tea instead, if you want to fall asleep and have pleasant dreams. It is less likely you will overdose if you are drinking something, and those herbs are mild and safer than Xanax. They are also ten times cheaper.
Zoloft is a remedy prescribed by psychiatrists for depression, even manic depression. I am not sure how effective it is, but I have heard complaints that it turns people into zombies, putting people into a stupor. There have even been reports of people committing suicide or experiencing what is known as "suicidal ideation," or thinking about suicide, while on Zoloft. I am not sure how common that is, or whether Zoloft is safe or risky, but once again, here we are dealing with a substance only tested for a single generation, and many questions remain. Meanwhile, someone is getting rich because of Zoloft. Remember, what pharmaceutical companies care about is enhancing shareholder wealth, not making people better.
Demerol is yet another derivative of opium, used as a painkiller. The first time you take it, a "high" may be felt, but the second and subsequent dosages produce diminished effects, because tolerance develops as is true with most opiates. In cases of overdose, the human body shuts down, as if going to sleep, except it is a sleep from which one does not awake. Combined with alcohol, this drug would be particularly dangerous. If someone requires a painkiller on an ongoing basis, it seems to me that the underlying physical problem needs to be addressed, rather than continuing with the painkiller. Pain is the body's way to tell you that something is wrong and needs to be fixed.
People being only human, they mix and match pills without regard to the contraindications, as if the pills were candy.
In fact, prescription pills are ten times more dangerous than either marijuana or alcohol. Drinking liquor, you are unlikely to overdose--most people either know when to stop, or pass out before it kills them. Smoking pot, it is impossible to overdose. Marijuana is less toxic than any other substance ever ingested by humans, including caffeine or aspirin. Had Michael chosen marijuana, instead of prescription poisons, he would be performing today.
What makes the problem of prescription drugs more complicated is that the generic varieties sold over the Internet could contain literally any substance at all. They are not necessarily what they claim to be. Some prescription drugs that are sold on the street are counterfeits produced by criminal gangs. It is wise to stay away from these things.
I'm a bit put off by the extreme media attention that has been generated by Jackson's demise. I heard that the breaking news actually slowed down the Internet. Really? Is it really that big of a story? I liked his music myself, especially Human Nature and Do You Remember the Time, but I'm not thunderstruck in any way. Everyone is going to die. There's no escape. I guess it does make those of us who remember his music feel older, but he was only fifty, and if he had stayed away from the pills, he would probably still be alive.
An article in the New York Times picks apart an old skeleton, a testy exchange between one of Ronald Reagan's White House Staff and the entertainer's concert promoters. My reaction was, so what? In this particular case, I think I would side with the Reagan administration. Presidents should invite who they want to invite to perform, and should write letters of congratulation to whomever they please.
The media is really getting desperate for stories about Jackson. Suddenly any old yarn is publishable, as long as it includes the magic words Michael Jackson.
I don't think there will ever be as big a star as MJ was, though, in the current climate of the music industry. For my part, I could not name any of the top fifty performers right now--not a single one.
If the pop star's death seems senseless, at least there is one positive note. Many people will receive the message that prescription pills are not safe.
Plenty of conservative, anti-drug types such as Rush Limbaugh get hooked on prescription drugs, thinking "these pills are okay, because my doctor prescribes them. They were tested by a major pharmaceutical company, and approved by the FDA. I know they won't harm me." In reality, you know nothing of the sort. Prescription drugs can and will harm you, sooner than you think.
Part of the philosophy expressed in my blog is to question authority, even medical authority. Doctors have been known to prescribe poison. Many of their potions are unnecessary and many have side effects. The entire list of prescription drugs implicated in Jackson's death has not been published yet, but three that were mentioned in the article above were Xanax, Zoloft and the painkiller Demerol. That sounds like a devil's brew to me.
Xanax is prescribed when people complain about trouble sleeping or anxiety. It is a subtle sedative. I am ignorant about this drug and am not sure of its safety, but feel skepticism, because Xanax has only been around for a generation, and was designed for one purpose: to enhance shareholder wealth for a pharmaceutical company. Prescription drugs have no other purpose.
On the other hand, passionflower and valerian root have been tried and tested for centuries, being herbal folk remedies for insomnia and anxiety. No one will be getting rich if you try these things, and therefore no one has an ulterior motive for suggesting that you try them. Therefore I suggest following in Grandfather's footsteps and brewing a nice hot cup of passionflower and valerian root tea instead, if you want to fall asleep and have pleasant dreams. It is less likely you will overdose if you are drinking something, and those herbs are mild and safer than Xanax. They are also ten times cheaper.
Zoloft is a remedy prescribed by psychiatrists for depression, even manic depression. I am not sure how effective it is, but I have heard complaints that it turns people into zombies, putting people into a stupor. There have even been reports of people committing suicide or experiencing what is known as "suicidal ideation," or thinking about suicide, while on Zoloft. I am not sure how common that is, or whether Zoloft is safe or risky, but once again, here we are dealing with a substance only tested for a single generation, and many questions remain. Meanwhile, someone is getting rich because of Zoloft. Remember, what pharmaceutical companies care about is enhancing shareholder wealth, not making people better.
Demerol is yet another derivative of opium, used as a painkiller. The first time you take it, a "high" may be felt, but the second and subsequent dosages produce diminished effects, because tolerance develops as is true with most opiates. In cases of overdose, the human body shuts down, as if going to sleep, except it is a sleep from which one does not awake. Combined with alcohol, this drug would be particularly dangerous. If someone requires a painkiller on an ongoing basis, it seems to me that the underlying physical problem needs to be addressed, rather than continuing with the painkiller. Pain is the body's way to tell you that something is wrong and needs to be fixed.
People being only human, they mix and match pills without regard to the contraindications, as if the pills were candy.
In fact, prescription pills are ten times more dangerous than either marijuana or alcohol. Drinking liquor, you are unlikely to overdose--most people either know when to stop, or pass out before it kills them. Smoking pot, it is impossible to overdose. Marijuana is less toxic than any other substance ever ingested by humans, including caffeine or aspirin. Had Michael chosen marijuana, instead of prescription poisons, he would be performing today.
What makes the problem of prescription drugs more complicated is that the generic varieties sold over the Internet could contain literally any substance at all. They are not necessarily what they claim to be. Some prescription drugs that are sold on the street are counterfeits produced by criminal gangs. It is wise to stay away from these things.
I'm a bit put off by the extreme media attention that has been generated by Jackson's demise. I heard that the breaking news actually slowed down the Internet. Really? Is it really that big of a story? I liked his music myself, especially Human Nature and Do You Remember the Time, but I'm not thunderstruck in any way. Everyone is going to die. There's no escape. I guess it does make those of us who remember his music feel older, but he was only fifty, and if he had stayed away from the pills, he would probably still be alive.
An article in the New York Times picks apart an old skeleton, a testy exchange between one of Ronald Reagan's White House Staff and the entertainer's concert promoters. My reaction was, so what? In this particular case, I think I would side with the Reagan administration. Presidents should invite who they want to invite to perform, and should write letters of congratulation to whomever they please.
The media is really getting desperate for stories about Jackson. Suddenly any old yarn is publishable, as long as it includes the magic words Michael Jackson.
I don't think there will ever be as big a star as MJ was, though, in the current climate of the music industry. For my part, I could not name any of the top fifty performers right now--not a single one.
What Would a Country Without Liberals Be Like?
In Iran, the conservative mindset is on full display in all its glory at the present time. A senior cleric is urging severe punishment of the election protesters.
The urge to punish others for vices or peccadilloes, real or imagined, is intrinsic to the conservative mindset. You cannot be a true conservative without taking a genuine delight in severe punishment. One can see this trait to a lesser extent in Republicans in the U.S. Listen to how Republicans talk about prisons, and how they delight in making prisons abusive, degrading and traumatic environments.
Iran's conservatives make Republicans look moderate by comparison. Iran provides a textbook example for where the conservative mindset ultimately leads, once the right-wingers have eliminated all of their opposition and are in the process of mopping up.
If you want to see where the liberal mindset leads, visit Holland.
Of the two countries, I think Holland is more pleasant, although the cost of living is also higher, because plenty of people want to live there. Not too many people are queuing up for immigration to Iran just at the moment, though. Being sentenced to fifty lashes for drinking a beer is not something that most people want to risk.
The urge to punish others for vices or peccadilloes, real or imagined, is intrinsic to the conservative mindset. You cannot be a true conservative without taking a genuine delight in severe punishment. One can see this trait to a lesser extent in Republicans in the U.S. Listen to how Republicans talk about prisons, and how they delight in making prisons abusive, degrading and traumatic environments.
Iran's conservatives make Republicans look moderate by comparison. Iran provides a textbook example for where the conservative mindset ultimately leads, once the right-wingers have eliminated all of their opposition and are in the process of mopping up.
If you want to see where the liberal mindset leads, visit Holland.
Of the two countries, I think Holland is more pleasant, although the cost of living is also higher, because plenty of people want to live there. Not too many people are queuing up for immigration to Iran just at the moment, though. Being sentenced to fifty lashes for drinking a beer is not something that most people want to risk.
South Park Will Disapprove (Again)
Trey Parker and Matt Stone will soon be writing another South Park episode blasting Hollywood celebrities. Nothing irritates them more than a celebrity meddling in politics.
Recently those Hollywood celebrities have been testing South Park's patience once again. Brad Pitt and Angelina Jolie have spoken out against human rights abuses in the diamond mines of Zimbabwe.
This is certain to provoke Trey Parker and Matt Stone.
According to South Park, celebrities should shut up about political issues and never speak out. They have made this point enough times that it has become a standard South Park theme.
For my part, I think it is refreshing when celebrities speak out about real issues impacting real people that might otherwise get buried in the latest news about a politician's extramarital affair. South Park is never going to talk about real issues, other than to cast cynical derision upon those that do.
Recently those Hollywood celebrities have been testing South Park's patience once again. Brad Pitt and Angelina Jolie have spoken out against human rights abuses in the diamond mines of Zimbabwe.
This is certain to provoke Trey Parker and Matt Stone.
According to South Park, celebrities should shut up about political issues and never speak out. They have made this point enough times that it has become a standard South Park theme.
For my part, I think it is refreshing when celebrities speak out about real issues impacting real people that might otherwise get buried in the latest news about a politician's extramarital affair. South Park is never going to talk about real issues, other than to cast cynical derision upon those that do.
I Will Gladly Pay $120 For Windows 7
Some people complain that the list price of Windows 7 is too high at $120.
Microsoft, fear not!
I will gladly pay $120. For that price, I assume what I'm getting is a flawless operating system with no problems lurking in the shadows for the end user.
If I do encounter a Windows problem, then Microsoft will pay me $50 an hour for solving it. Right? Plus a refund of the original $120 cost?
Did I make an incorrect assumption anywhere?
If Microsoft is not making a flawless operating system--if the end users are expected to debug the OS, as we did with Windows 2000 and XP--then $120 is a joke. Microsoft should be paying us to install the kludge. For my part, I've spent at least two hundred hours (conservative estimate) troubleshooting Window-ish problems over the last ten years. If I were compensated at the level of Microsoft's phone-techs, that would amount to $10,000.
Microsoft, fear not!
I will gladly pay $120. For that price, I assume what I'm getting is a flawless operating system with no problems lurking in the shadows for the end user.
If I do encounter a Windows problem, then Microsoft will pay me $50 an hour for solving it. Right? Plus a refund of the original $120 cost?
Did I make an incorrect assumption anywhere?
If Microsoft is not making a flawless operating system--if the end users are expected to debug the OS, as we did with Windows 2000 and XP--then $120 is a joke. Microsoft should be paying us to install the kludge. For my part, I've spent at least two hundred hours (conservative estimate) troubleshooting Window-ish problems over the last ten years. If I were compensated at the level of Microsoft's phone-techs, that would amount to $10,000.
Thursday, June 25, 2009
The Daily Show and Newt Gingrich
I'm an avid fan of The Daily Show with Jon Stewart.
The May 19th, 2009 episode was something special. Jon Stewart interviewed Newt Gingrich once again. In previous interviews, I have felt that Newt got the best of the interview, subverting the tone of the conversation to his gain.
Jon Stewart is more than a match for most of his guests. He is the most fast-witted television personality alive today. He is learned on history, science, and politics, and knows much more than people might assume by his buffoonery. Jon plays the fool but is wise far beyond his years. I never watch Jon without concluding that he may be right, even on such few occasions when my original opinion differed from his own. He speaks to the better nature in all men, although he does have a markedly cynical wit, and sometimes seems clownish. He has the rare gift of making people laugh.
Gingrich is an ideal guest for The Daily Show, because although he is a diametric opposite on most political issues of the day, he is--unlike much of his tribe--close to being Jon's intellectual equal. But he's not quite there. Remaining cloistered within his bland tribe has retarded whatever brilliant spark might have been there long ago.
However, for a politician, Newt is very cunning and fast-witted, and his physical size, a factor of psychological intimidation, is rather greater than Jon's. In addition to this, Newt possesses a steadiness and calm, and his voice conveys a higher level of discourse, as one associates with greatness--such figures as George Washington. However, he is always cunning, and he delights in making false statements seem reasonable. Some minds take a perverse delight in ripping people away from truth and into the liar's personal constructions of reality. They are repressed artists who really wanted to create something of beauty, but instead went into business or politics and began weaving webs of intricate and fantastic lies, which to their mind are magnificent to behold and bring them much pleasure.
But in the May 19th, 2009 episode, Jon was prepared. Watching these two great minds spar was like watching a prize fight. Newt got in some good licks himself. He made my heart frown on socialism--how dare Obama be socialist? But then Jon pointed out that the military is a socialist organ, among many other segments of society. Socialism is just a word designed to press a button in people, putting them in mind of the U.S.S.R. or Red China.
I was intrigued by their body language. Newt seemed to intimidate Jon in some way. Jon crouched, not looking Newt in the eyes. Was this by design, or unintentional? I suspected that Jon had a few surprise punches in store for Newt, and I was right. One thing I'm sure about is that the show was unscripted.
Inviting Newt on the show was a great idea, because it attracted Republicans to the show. Just preaching to the choir will never gain any converts. On the other hand, Newt benefited, too, by getting the opportunity to flog his new book. Any publicity is good publicity, as they say in show biz.
The May 19th, 2009 episode was something special. Jon Stewart interviewed Newt Gingrich once again. In previous interviews, I have felt that Newt got the best of the interview, subverting the tone of the conversation to his gain.
Jon Stewart is more than a match for most of his guests. He is the most fast-witted television personality alive today. He is learned on history, science, and politics, and knows much more than people might assume by his buffoonery. Jon plays the fool but is wise far beyond his years. I never watch Jon without concluding that he may be right, even on such few occasions when my original opinion differed from his own. He speaks to the better nature in all men, although he does have a markedly cynical wit, and sometimes seems clownish. He has the rare gift of making people laugh.
Gingrich is an ideal guest for The Daily Show, because although he is a diametric opposite on most political issues of the day, he is--unlike much of his tribe--close to being Jon's intellectual equal. But he's not quite there. Remaining cloistered within his bland tribe has retarded whatever brilliant spark might have been there long ago.
However, for a politician, Newt is very cunning and fast-witted, and his physical size, a factor of psychological intimidation, is rather greater than Jon's. In addition to this, Newt possesses a steadiness and calm, and his voice conveys a higher level of discourse, as one associates with greatness--such figures as George Washington. However, he is always cunning, and he delights in making false statements seem reasonable. Some minds take a perverse delight in ripping people away from truth and into the liar's personal constructions of reality. They are repressed artists who really wanted to create something of beauty, but instead went into business or politics and began weaving webs of intricate and fantastic lies, which to their mind are magnificent to behold and bring them much pleasure.
But in the May 19th, 2009 episode, Jon was prepared. Watching these two great minds spar was like watching a prize fight. Newt got in some good licks himself. He made my heart frown on socialism--how dare Obama be socialist? But then Jon pointed out that the military is a socialist organ, among many other segments of society. Socialism is just a word designed to press a button in people, putting them in mind of the U.S.S.R. or Red China.
I was intrigued by their body language. Newt seemed to intimidate Jon in some way. Jon crouched, not looking Newt in the eyes. Was this by design, or unintentional? I suspected that Jon had a few surprise punches in store for Newt, and I was right. One thing I'm sure about is that the show was unscripted.
Inviting Newt on the show was a great idea, because it attracted Republicans to the show. Just preaching to the choir will never gain any converts. On the other hand, Newt benefited, too, by getting the opportunity to flog his new book. Any publicity is good publicity, as they say in show biz.
Monday, June 22, 2009
Iran Has a Martyr
A thousand years from now, history will remember two names among others.
Neda Salehi Agha Soltan, slain by the Iranian regime's assassins. The innocent woman will be remembered and beloved as a martyr.
On the other hand, the accursed dictator of Iran will be recorded as just another rotten villain in a long line of rotten villains. Of no interest, save to be studied like a virus, that future examples of his contagion can be defeated.
Neda Salehi Agha Soltan, slain by the Iranian regime's assassins. The innocent woman will be remembered and beloved as a martyr.
On the other hand, the accursed dictator of Iran will be recorded as just another rotten villain in a long line of rotten villains. Of no interest, save to be studied like a virus, that future examples of his contagion can be defeated.
Sunday, June 21, 2009
Obama Can Make Us Laugh
Although it may seem trivial, I think it's important that our President can crack wise and make people laugh, as in this latest example. Wit may not be number one on the list of desirable traits in a President, but in hard times like these, a bit of humor goes a long way.
Wednesday, June 17, 2009
Finished Watching "Universe"
I finished watching the four-dvd set of "Universe," a ten to twelve hour-long documentary about the origins, composition, and nature of the Universe.
Everyone is familiar with the story of Adam and Eve as related in Genesis. It's all wrong, of course, like much else in the Bible. The documentary never quite says so in words, but the implication is there for anyone with a mind to think.
The actual story of the Universe is that everything, including our bodies, originated from a singularity, a single point in space. During the Big Bang, the singularity began expanding like a balloon. The expansion never ended. Today, all matter is accelerating. The Universe is not static, but is increasing in size as it expands. Every object in space-time is in a state of motion. Eventually, the velocity will become too great, and matter itself will disintegrate.
This implies that there was a finite beginning, and will be a finite end, to the Universe as we know it. We do not, however, know what caused the Big Bang, the singularity, or what happened prior to the Big Bang. It may be that the Universe is in a constant state of contraction followed by expansion. This notion appeals to me on an intuitive level because it reminds me of a bullfrog puffing up with air, croaking and then beginning again. It also supplies a neat answer to the ticklish question of what happened before the Big Bang.
Helium was the original element, and during the Big Bang, hydrogen formed and continues to form inside of stars, along with other elements created from helium by the extreme heat and pressure of stars. Apparently, all the elements of the Periodic Table derive from helium, including hydrogen, gold, and oxygen. The substance of the human body derives ultimately from stars; we are stardust, as is much of the planet. Hydrogen is the most common element in the Universe, helium the second-most common.
What bothers me about documentaries like this are the scary implications. One gets a strong sense of the insignificance of humankind, and of planet Earth, when contemplating the vastness of the Universe. I believe I remember hearing that there were 125 billion stars in the Milky Way alone, and our galaxy is just one of many, and our planet is a relatively young one. The implication is that there is probably intelligent life at many other locations around the cosmos. We just have not encountered it yet. Sooner or later, these alien civilizations will receive the radio signals that we began beaming into space in the 1930's. The prospect of a planet as wonderful as ours may be quite tempting. I am sure that any race more advanced than ours would want our planet for their own, and make quick work of us, one way or the other. To them, we would seem about as advanced as ants. The only thing really protecting us, or rather buying us some time, is the vast distance between our world and everywhere else.
Oh, another worrisome thought is that the Andromeda galaxy, twice the size of our own, is on a collision course with the Milky Way. Maybe the Republicans should muster up a "Coalition of the Willing" to fight against the Andromeda galaxy. How much aid should we give to Poland, so that they will send a lab tech over to NASA to help with the counter-measures? And how, exactly, do we stop the Andromeda galaxy?
The footage, in part computer-generated, but with some actual footage from NASA spacecraft, reminded me that everything in the Universe of a substantial size--whether a star, planet, or moon--seems to be round. This is probably due to gravity. For this reason, the perfect symbol for a religion would probably incorporate a circle somewhere. The symbol for Wicca comes to mind, or possibly Taoism.
I don't understand life. Why does life exist? How did it begin? Why should it be necessary? No world religions provide satisfactory answers to this question. Instead, world religions appeal to the selfish ego, telling man what he wants to hear: that he is the central most concern of a loving God who watches over and protects him. A comforting and consoling thought, but false, because dreadful things, as we all know, happen quite easily. And we also know that once a person dies, they stay dead. The dead do not visit us. If they did, we would certainly be busy entertaining them, because there are more dead than living.
From what we know, life is unnecessary in the ordinary running of the cosmos. The cosmos takes care of itself without any help from life. Why should molecules join together and, over the course of evolution, develop a certain brand of self-awareness?
One idea that has occurred to me is that life may create the universe, rather than the other way around. Our thoughts and actions may influence the nature of matter, time, and space, in some way that we don't understand. I've read about similar themes in articles concerning quantum mechanics. But I don't know. This sounds suspiciously New Age to me. But the Universe is not a place where things tend to happen for no reason. Why should life be a thing separate and distinct from non-life? Maybe reality is more like television, and less like reality as we perceive it. The Universe could be unreal. Maybe a virtual reality is closer to the truth--sort of like "The Matrix."
How self-aware are we, anyway? Maybe we are more like robots than like actual thinkers, as we prefer to believe. Much of what we say or do could be predicted, could it not? I have always been of the opinion that human beings are nothing more than elegant computer programs, predictable in every way, shape, and form. Moods can be programmed into a computer. You simply assign values to variables that influence programmatic behavior. Ideas can be programmed into a computer, as can beliefs, opinions, degrees of certainty, and degrees of ambivalence. It's just a matter of time, probably about thirty years, before AI develops a computer that thinks as well as humans do about all subjects. All indications point to a world where computers will be superior to humans. This means all workers will be obsolete and expendable. War will result--the haves versus the have-nots. The very rich will decide that the poor need to die, that the rich will have more space and end the harms caused by pollution to "their" environment. This means me, you, our neighbors and about 99.8% of all humans will be liquidated, because they can be replaced by droid-slaves, which work for free, never complain, and are better than we are.
The future looks like a scary place. I'm kind of glad that I don't have to be there. By the time AI gets good enough to pose a risk, I'll have used up all my time on this world already and be food for worms. But for younger people, they have a future of increasing temperatures, declining wages, increased violence, increased warfare, widespread radioactivity from nuclear war, and severe weather.
In the short term, I would like to know whether there is life on Europa, which orbits Jupiter, or Titan, which orbits Saturn. Of the two, Europa seems the most promising. Although the surface is cold and radioactive, beneath the surface there may be oceans of liquid water. It is very interesting that planet Earth is not the only large body, even in our tiny solar system, with large amounts of water. If water is as widespread a phenomena elsewhere as it is here, then the chances of life improve considerably.
Everyone is familiar with the story of Adam and Eve as related in Genesis. It's all wrong, of course, like much else in the Bible. The documentary never quite says so in words, but the implication is there for anyone with a mind to think.
The actual story of the Universe is that everything, including our bodies, originated from a singularity, a single point in space. During the Big Bang, the singularity began expanding like a balloon. The expansion never ended. Today, all matter is accelerating. The Universe is not static, but is increasing in size as it expands. Every object in space-time is in a state of motion. Eventually, the velocity will become too great, and matter itself will disintegrate.
This implies that there was a finite beginning, and will be a finite end, to the Universe as we know it. We do not, however, know what caused the Big Bang, the singularity, or what happened prior to the Big Bang. It may be that the Universe is in a constant state of contraction followed by expansion. This notion appeals to me on an intuitive level because it reminds me of a bullfrog puffing up with air, croaking and then beginning again. It also supplies a neat answer to the ticklish question of what happened before the Big Bang.
Helium was the original element, and during the Big Bang, hydrogen formed and continues to form inside of stars, along with other elements created from helium by the extreme heat and pressure of stars. Apparently, all the elements of the Periodic Table derive from helium, including hydrogen, gold, and oxygen. The substance of the human body derives ultimately from stars; we are stardust, as is much of the planet. Hydrogen is the most common element in the Universe, helium the second-most common.
What bothers me about documentaries like this are the scary implications. One gets a strong sense of the insignificance of humankind, and of planet Earth, when contemplating the vastness of the Universe. I believe I remember hearing that there were 125 billion stars in the Milky Way alone, and our galaxy is just one of many, and our planet is a relatively young one. The implication is that there is probably intelligent life at many other locations around the cosmos. We just have not encountered it yet. Sooner or later, these alien civilizations will receive the radio signals that we began beaming into space in the 1930's. The prospect of a planet as wonderful as ours may be quite tempting. I am sure that any race more advanced than ours would want our planet for their own, and make quick work of us, one way or the other. To them, we would seem about as advanced as ants. The only thing really protecting us, or rather buying us some time, is the vast distance between our world and everywhere else.
Oh, another worrisome thought is that the Andromeda galaxy, twice the size of our own, is on a collision course with the Milky Way. Maybe the Republicans should muster up a "Coalition of the Willing" to fight against the Andromeda galaxy. How much aid should we give to Poland, so that they will send a lab tech over to NASA to help with the counter-measures? And how, exactly, do we stop the Andromeda galaxy?
The footage, in part computer-generated, but with some actual footage from NASA spacecraft, reminded me that everything in the Universe of a substantial size--whether a star, planet, or moon--seems to be round. This is probably due to gravity. For this reason, the perfect symbol for a religion would probably incorporate a circle somewhere. The symbol for Wicca comes to mind, or possibly Taoism.
I don't understand life. Why does life exist? How did it begin? Why should it be necessary? No world religions provide satisfactory answers to this question. Instead, world religions appeal to the selfish ego, telling man what he wants to hear: that he is the central most concern of a loving God who watches over and protects him. A comforting and consoling thought, but false, because dreadful things, as we all know, happen quite easily. And we also know that once a person dies, they stay dead. The dead do not visit us. If they did, we would certainly be busy entertaining them, because there are more dead than living.
From what we know, life is unnecessary in the ordinary running of the cosmos. The cosmos takes care of itself without any help from life. Why should molecules join together and, over the course of evolution, develop a certain brand of self-awareness?
One idea that has occurred to me is that life may create the universe, rather than the other way around. Our thoughts and actions may influence the nature of matter, time, and space, in some way that we don't understand. I've read about similar themes in articles concerning quantum mechanics. But I don't know. This sounds suspiciously New Age to me. But the Universe is not a place where things tend to happen for no reason. Why should life be a thing separate and distinct from non-life? Maybe reality is more like television, and less like reality as we perceive it. The Universe could be unreal. Maybe a virtual reality is closer to the truth--sort of like "The Matrix."
How self-aware are we, anyway? Maybe we are more like robots than like actual thinkers, as we prefer to believe. Much of what we say or do could be predicted, could it not? I have always been of the opinion that human beings are nothing more than elegant computer programs, predictable in every way, shape, and form. Moods can be programmed into a computer. You simply assign values to variables that influence programmatic behavior. Ideas can be programmed into a computer, as can beliefs, opinions, degrees of certainty, and degrees of ambivalence. It's just a matter of time, probably about thirty years, before AI develops a computer that thinks as well as humans do about all subjects. All indications point to a world where computers will be superior to humans. This means all workers will be obsolete and expendable. War will result--the haves versus the have-nots. The very rich will decide that the poor need to die, that the rich will have more space and end the harms caused by pollution to "their" environment. This means me, you, our neighbors and about 99.8% of all humans will be liquidated, because they can be replaced by droid-slaves, which work for free, never complain, and are better than we are.
The future looks like a scary place. I'm kind of glad that I don't have to be there. By the time AI gets good enough to pose a risk, I'll have used up all my time on this world already and be food for worms. But for younger people, they have a future of increasing temperatures, declining wages, increased violence, increased warfare, widespread radioactivity from nuclear war, and severe weather.
In the short term, I would like to know whether there is life on Europa, which orbits Jupiter, or Titan, which orbits Saturn. Of the two, Europa seems the most promising. Although the surface is cold and radioactive, beneath the surface there may be oceans of liquid water. It is very interesting that planet Earth is not the only large body, even in our tiny solar system, with large amounts of water. If water is as widespread a phenomena elsewhere as it is here, then the chances of life improve considerably.
How Would We Begin to Fix the Republican Party?
The planet Earth is approaching an Apocalyptic future, and Republicans bear much responsibility for squandering the nation's wealth on pointless overseas conflicts while ignoring the real issues confronting America, such as dependence upon fossil fuels.
How can the Republican Party make amends for the catastrophic strategic and tactical mistakes they have made?
Why did the Republican Party choose ignorance, when education is available via the Internet or the public library, requiring little effort to obtain?
Why did the Republican Party turn its back upon science and learning?
Instead of working on the problem of global warming, the Bush Administration tackled Iraq. To compound this error, the Bush Administration conducted a dirty war, using lies and deception aimed at the American public and at Congress. Iraq is a quagmire that will continue to drain funds from the U.S. government for years to come.
No one has harmed America worse than the Republican party. Not Osama Bin Laden, nor Qadafi, nor Saddam Hussein. In fact, it would be difficult to find an enemy, domestic or foreign, that has damaged the United States worse than George W. Bush.
I have no idea how to fix the Republican Party. All that I can suggest is education. Learn more about the world--science in particular, but neglect history at your peril. The level of ignorance in the Republican Party is extreme and encompasses everything from top to bottom and left to right.
How can the Republican Party make amends for the catastrophic strategic and tactical mistakes they have made?
Why did the Republican Party choose ignorance, when education is available via the Internet or the public library, requiring little effort to obtain?
Why did the Republican Party turn its back upon science and learning?
Instead of working on the problem of global warming, the Bush Administration tackled Iraq. To compound this error, the Bush Administration conducted a dirty war, using lies and deception aimed at the American public and at Congress. Iraq is a quagmire that will continue to drain funds from the U.S. government for years to come.
No one has harmed America worse than the Republican party. Not Osama Bin Laden, nor Qadafi, nor Saddam Hussein. In fact, it would be difficult to find an enemy, domestic or foreign, that has damaged the United States worse than George W. Bush.
I have no idea how to fix the Republican Party. All that I can suggest is education. Learn more about the world--science in particular, but neglect history at your peril. The level of ignorance in the Republican Party is extreme and encompasses everything from top to bottom and left to right.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)