Tuesday, February 8, 2011
The $1.99 Soft Drink
At a mega-grocery store, the deli has a pernicious rule. They don't allow customers to buy drinks from the rest of the grocery store; only from the deli. Why, I don't know. It seems like a strange rule. Maybe they want customers to buy the sugary sodas that have a higher profit margin. I don't like sugary sodas. I like the juice of carrots, grapefruit, lemons, or oranges, which are sold in the grocery store. Due to this rule, which the cashier rigidly enforced, I ate my meal without drinking. However, the thousands of dollars I spent at that grocery store over the years won't be repeated. There are other grocery stores, after all. The dozen-odd people I recommended the grocery store to over the years won't be repeated. Now I have a different story to tell instead of gushing over the food selection, which again, are duplicated by other grocery stores. They ain't the only game in town, not by a long shot. It does seem odd to me that the one-time possible sale of a $1.99 soft drink is preferred over goodwill. The urge to control customers can be taken too far. Greed is short-sighted, snatching for pennies while losing dollars.
The Hunt for Life...on Earth
The Russians are on the verge of exploring a lake that has been sequestered beneath Antarctic ice for over 15 million years. It will be interesting to learn what ancient life forms, if any, exist in that isolated environment.
Sunday, February 6, 2011
Huffington Post
I removed my link to The Huffington Post after reading that AOL is going to acquire HP for $315 million cash. AOL is bad news.
Friday, February 4, 2011
Ronald Reagan's Incompetency
I don't know why the media insists upon lionizing Ronald Reagan. That president oversaw the largest peacetime increase in the national deficit, increased the senseless war on drugs, declared war on the little island of Grenada, sold arms to Iran, funded what would become the future Taliban, and supported the terrorists in Nicaragua. His Presidency was a complete and utter disaster. He set the stage for our problems in Afghanistan, Iran, and Iraq. However, at one time I did support him. I was mistaken. In retrospect, his failings are clear. He was lucky enough to preside during a period when the former U.S.S.R. was dissolving and Gorbachev was seeking reforms. For that reason, right-wingers have deluded themselves into thinking "Reagan beat the Commies," when in reality, the Commies beat themselves with foolish economic, foreign and domestic policies. In no way was the U.S.S.R. ever a competent government.
Conservatives make noise about reducing the deficit only when there is a moderate in the White House. When their party controls the White House, their nature moves them to spend the maximum amount of taxpayer money possible. That is why Reagan increased the deficit every single year that he was in office. He used the money to expand the military, so that we could wage pointless and counter-productive invasions of foreign countries. This is because right-wingers have a deep craving for enemies. They want to be hated. If there are no enemies, they go around the world creating new enemies.
Conservatives make noise about reducing the deficit only when there is a moderate in the White House. When their party controls the White House, their nature moves them to spend the maximum amount of taxpayer money possible. That is why Reagan increased the deficit every single year that he was in office. He used the money to expand the military, so that we could wage pointless and counter-productive invasions of foreign countries. This is because right-wingers have a deep craving for enemies. They want to be hated. If there are no enemies, they go around the world creating new enemies.
Time Magazine on Archer
I was amused by TIME magazine labeling the new cartoon series "Archer" as "bawdy and brilliant." Bawdy, yes. Brilliant, no. TIME magazine would think it was brilliant. They are clueless about everything else, so why not television as well? TIME magazine is primarily composed of photographs, charts, graphs and extra-large fonts these days. I can read it in the amount of time I spend in a grocery store checkout line. Why would anyone buy such a magazine? It's not really a magazine, but just a collection of pictures, and not very good ones at that.
Thursday, February 3, 2011
Heroes in Egypt
Real courage is demonstrated in Cairo, Egypt, by demonstrators who are willing to stand up for freedom, day and night, in the open, in public, against government-paid thugs who are using machetes, clubs, fire bombs, whips, and guns against them.
Mubarak sent a sniper equipped with a laser sight to murder seven civilians under cover of darkness. A typical deed for such a tyrant as Mubarak, who should be tried for his crimes and placed at the mercy of the Egyptian people.
It is embarrassing to read that billions of dollars in U.S. taxpayer money has been squandered upon a torturing, brutal savage such as Mubarak, a coward who turns guns upon defenseless people. In this way he is no different from the Iranian dictator. Perhaps the two dictators differ upon the single issue of Islamic extremism, but otherwise they are soul-mates.
No one wants another Islamic regime to replace Mubarak, but when people are held down in poverty and desperation for many generations, they do have a tendency to turn fanatical, superstitious, and irrational. Violence and oppression have a way of being perpetuated. It may be that another anti-American, anti-Israel Islamist regime is created in Egypt, and perhaps that will be in part a reaction against U.S. aid and support to the dictator Mubarak for so many years.
Billions in U.S. money given to Mubarak: why? I find it difficult to comprehend. Just because someone consents to become the enemy of our enemy is not a good enough reason. We become complicit in crimes beyond our control, and the final cost is difficult to foresee. Our acts are writ in history, unalterable. People remember.
The trouble with so many of our intelligence analysts, political leaders and other big-shots is that they are cunning. Yes, they are very good at what they do. They are focused on precise objectives and they succeed in obtaining short-term goals. If they were dumb or wise they might think, "Oh, but to support an evil man is wrong!" All costs are not apparent. Some are hidden. There are repercussions for committing acts of evil in the world. It would be better to remain uninvolved and unengaged, focused upon domestic issues, instead of blundering around the globe getting involved with other countries in a foolish and short-sighted manner. We are wasting our money creating new generations of enemies that would otherwise be content to leave us be.
Witnesses who spent the night in Tahrir said there were major shooting incidents at 11pm and 4am, the latter involving a sniper equipped with a laser sight. Seven protesters were reported to be confirmed dead at a nearby makeshift medical centre, with three other bodies still unrecovered.
--The Guardian
Mubarak sent a sniper equipped with a laser sight to murder seven civilians under cover of darkness. A typical deed for such a tyrant as Mubarak, who should be tried for his crimes and placed at the mercy of the Egyptian people.
It is embarrassing to read that billions of dollars in U.S. taxpayer money has been squandered upon a torturing, brutal savage such as Mubarak, a coward who turns guns upon defenseless people. In this way he is no different from the Iranian dictator. Perhaps the two dictators differ upon the single issue of Islamic extremism, but otherwise they are soul-mates.
No one wants another Islamic regime to replace Mubarak, but when people are held down in poverty and desperation for many generations, they do have a tendency to turn fanatical, superstitious, and irrational. Violence and oppression have a way of being perpetuated. It may be that another anti-American, anti-Israel Islamist regime is created in Egypt, and perhaps that will be in part a reaction against U.S. aid and support to the dictator Mubarak for so many years.
Billions in U.S. money given to Mubarak: why? I find it difficult to comprehend. Just because someone consents to become the enemy of our enemy is not a good enough reason. We become complicit in crimes beyond our control, and the final cost is difficult to foresee. Our acts are writ in history, unalterable. People remember.
The trouble with so many of our intelligence analysts, political leaders and other big-shots is that they are cunning. Yes, they are very good at what they do. They are focused on precise objectives and they succeed in obtaining short-term goals. If they were dumb or wise they might think, "Oh, but to support an evil man is wrong!" All costs are not apparent. Some are hidden. There are repercussions for committing acts of evil in the world. It would be better to remain uninvolved and unengaged, focused upon domestic issues, instead of blundering around the globe getting involved with other countries in a foolish and short-sighted manner. We are wasting our money creating new generations of enemies that would otherwise be content to leave us be.
Saturday, January 29, 2011
Egypt
I hope Egypt gets a republic out of the recent spate of protests. U.S. ally or not, I'm no fan of dictators who employ torture against their citizens. Mubarak's police force seemed seriously out of control. All police have a tendency to become thugs when there is no redress for citizens' grievances. Many people are interested in becoming police because they have a thirst for power and a streak of sadism in their nature. Police should always test their applicants psychologically to avoid getting sadists in their ranks.
One of my thoughts on reading about the situation in Egypt was that it could happen here. Americans know their government serves the interests of big business instead of ordinary citizens. They know the government is corporate-owned-and-operated. That most, if not all, political leaders have sold out to corporate interests is understood as a given. There isn't even any doubt. So if unemployment remains high and college students can't find jobs, then one day the U.S. will look like Egypt today.
I really don't see how the employment picture in the U.S. can ever improve, when most of the jobs have already been exported to China, India and other nations where corporations can enjoy the benefits of cheap labor and less regulation. They can pollute all they want and treat their workers any which way they feel like.
Free trade was a good concept in theory, but without safeguards and regulations, in practice it results in a few people becoming very rich and everyone else becoming very poor. I think the U.S. is going to become a lot poorer than it is today, and civil unrest will lead to the army being used against U.S. citizens, as is the case in other countries where the rulers fear the people.
One of my thoughts on reading about the situation in Egypt was that it could happen here. Americans know their government serves the interests of big business instead of ordinary citizens. They know the government is corporate-owned-and-operated. That most, if not all, political leaders have sold out to corporate interests is understood as a given. There isn't even any doubt. So if unemployment remains high and college students can't find jobs, then one day the U.S. will look like Egypt today.
I really don't see how the employment picture in the U.S. can ever improve, when most of the jobs have already been exported to China, India and other nations where corporations can enjoy the benefits of cheap labor and less regulation. They can pollute all they want and treat their workers any which way they feel like.
Free trade was a good concept in theory, but without safeguards and regulations, in practice it results in a few people becoming very rich and everyone else becoming very poor. I think the U.S. is going to become a lot poorer than it is today, and civil unrest will lead to the army being used against U.S. citizens, as is the case in other countries where the rulers fear the people.
Thursday, January 27, 2011
A Murder in Uganda
A gay activist was murdered in Uganda.
What the murdering swine on the right wing fail to realize, due to lack of social intelligence (including empathy for others), is that harming a gay adult does not reduce the number of gays in the world. Gays will keep being born! All an atrocity does is make their side, that is the side of evil fascism, look bad. A documented history is established of atrocities committed by those who are homophobic bigots. And that helps in consolidating the alliance of good people. The real danger to society is posed by the bigots, who if they are not killing one minority, will be killing another, because it is in their nature to kill and to harm others that are different from themselves. Such is the nature of evil.
“David’s death is a result of the hatred planted in Uganda by U.S. evangelicals in 2009,” Val Kalende, the chairwoman of one of Uganda’s gay rights groups, said in a statement. “The Ugandan government and the so-called U.S. evangelicals must take responsibility for David’s blood.”
Ms. Kalende was referring to visits in March 2009 by a group of American evangelicals, who held rallies and workshops in Uganda discussing how to turn gay people straight, how gay men sodomized teenage boys and how “the gay movement is an evil institution” intended to “defeat the marriage-based society.”
-- The New York Times
What the murdering swine on the right wing fail to realize, due to lack of social intelligence (including empathy for others), is that harming a gay adult does not reduce the number of gays in the world. Gays will keep being born! All an atrocity does is make their side, that is the side of evil fascism, look bad. A documented history is established of atrocities committed by those who are homophobic bigots. And that helps in consolidating the alliance of good people. The real danger to society is posed by the bigots, who if they are not killing one minority, will be killing another, because it is in their nature to kill and to harm others that are different from themselves. Such is the nature of evil.
Friday, January 14, 2011
Gold is Proven by Fire
To be romantic is to have intelligent, kind and elegant friends and stupid, cruel and boorish enemies. Enemies provide contrast, so that others may better appreciate one's worth. Gold is proven by fire. The elves of Middle-Earth were rendered more glamorous because of their foes, the orcs.
I do not mind encountering enemies. I would not have it any other way. It may be that the entire purpose of life is to set oneself upon the world in opposition to such creatures.
I view the human existence as a struggle between good and evil. Evil leads to the decline of our species, the devastation of the natural environment, violence, ignorance, conformity, death, and ugliness. Good lends itself to the improvement of our species and greater beauty, wildness, growth, peace, refinement and knowledge.
Evil works in secret. Good works in the open.
Evil builds prisons. Good prevents crime.
Evil lies. Good tells the truth.
Evil censors. Good discusses.
Evil uses a gun. Good uses words.
Evil stops the talking. Good stops the shooting.
I do not mind encountering enemies. I would not have it any other way. It may be that the entire purpose of life is to set oneself upon the world in opposition to such creatures.
I view the human existence as a struggle between good and evil. Evil leads to the decline of our species, the devastation of the natural environment, violence, ignorance, conformity, death, and ugliness. Good lends itself to the improvement of our species and greater beauty, wildness, growth, peace, refinement and knowledge.
Evil works in secret. Good works in the open.
Evil builds prisons. Good prevents crime.
Evil lies. Good tells the truth.
Evil censors. Good discusses.
Evil uses a gun. Good uses words.
Evil stops the talking. Good stops the shooting.
Wednesday, January 12, 2011
Correcting a Firefox Foolishness
Let's say you encounter a malware attack site that crashes your browser or, worse, Windows. It happened to me just now. Upon rebooting the computer, Firefox attempts to reload the same malware attack site, trapping the user in an endless crash-reboot cycle. I was fast enough to abort Firefox before the malware site, Mashable dot com, loaded again. (I am not familiar with Mashable, but I will endeavor never to browse that site again, as a single visit inflicted the Blue Screen of Death upon my PC. As far as I am concerned, Mashable is an unfriendly site.)
This log-stupid Firefox behavior can be corrected, although not through intuitive means. The fix is located here. "about:config" must be entered in the url window in order to access the hidden Firefox options.
This log-stupid Firefox behavior can be corrected, although not through intuitive means. The fix is located here. "about:config" must be entered in the url window in order to access the hidden Firefox options.
Tuesday, January 11, 2011
One Issue Where I am Conservative
I define conservative as being opposed to the rights of the individual, and in favor of the rights of corporations, the State, and/or other organizations. Given that assumption, there is one issue where I am conservative, and that is funerals. I do not believe anyone has a right to protest at a funeral. I think we should respect the dead, the mourners, and all who come to pay respects at a funeral. I think this is one of the basic hallmarks of civilization.
The legislation being considered by the Arizona legislature is good, but at 300 feet, does not go far enough in terms of distance. I say ban any protest within 1000 feet.
It is difficult for me to understand the mentality of cults like the Westboro Baptist Church. I think that their psychology is based upon hate. Like cockroaches and slugs, they are of no interest to me, other than in terms of how to avoid or eliminate. Their strategy is log-stupid. Rather than gain any influence, they are actually serving the interests of their political opponents. If I were Baptist, I would be mortified that their Church includes the word "Baptist" in their title.
The legislation being considered by the Arizona legislature is good, but at 300 feet, does not go far enough in terms of distance. I say ban any protest within 1000 feet.
It is difficult for me to understand the mentality of cults like the Westboro Baptist Church. I think that their psychology is based upon hate. Like cockroaches and slugs, they are of no interest to me, other than in terms of how to avoid or eliminate. Their strategy is log-stupid. Rather than gain any influence, they are actually serving the interests of their political opponents. If I were Baptist, I would be mortified that their Church includes the word "Baptist" in their title.
Saturday, January 8, 2011
Win, Lose, Draw
In chess, I find that drawing leaves me almost as content as winning. I draw about one out of five games or so. If each side plays without making a mistake, then a draw is the natural outcome of chess.
Losing does not bother me if the other side plays exceptionally well. Losing is annoying only if it is the result of a blunder, a particularly egregious mistake. True, chess is a game of mistakes, and neither side would win without there being at least one mistake. If I make a mistake, then perhaps I will learn from it. Not so with a blunder. A blunder is a failure to see something on the board that should be immediately obvious, such as imminent checkmate or the capture of a piece or pawn. A blunder reprimands carelessness.
We all make mistakes and, it should be admitted, blunders. It is the nature of the game. Perhaps supercomputers do not make blunders, but humans do. I composed a little ditty to describe my blundering.
Ultimately, what determines one's success in chess is raw calculating speed. I know that I'm slow, compared to the best players. Not only that, I don't always see everything. I can see up to four or five moves ahead, although usually I just look two or three moves ahead. The better players can look further into the game and faster. I am astounded by players that only require fifteen minutes or even less for an entire game when playing against me. If they can win consistently under that time constraint, to me it seems like they are superhuman.
Losing does not bother me if the other side plays exceptionally well. Losing is annoying only if it is the result of a blunder, a particularly egregious mistake. True, chess is a game of mistakes, and neither side would win without there being at least one mistake. If I make a mistake, then perhaps I will learn from it. Not so with a blunder. A blunder is a failure to see something on the board that should be immediately obvious, such as imminent checkmate or the capture of a piece or pawn. A blunder reprimands carelessness.
We all make mistakes and, it should be admitted, blunders. It is the nature of the game. Perhaps supercomputers do not make blunders, but humans do. I composed a little ditty to describe my blundering.
My brain ain't the best brain.The beauty of online chessplaying is that one can find players of the same approximate skill level. This is not always possible in a local club.
It's an old brain,
Prone to mistakes.
But it's better than no brain
or a half-brain
or a birdbrain,
and I'm happy just the same.
Ultimately, what determines one's success in chess is raw calculating speed. I know that I'm slow, compared to the best players. Not only that, I don't always see everything. I can see up to four or five moves ahead, although usually I just look two or three moves ahead. The better players can look further into the game and faster. I am astounded by players that only require fifteen minutes or even less for an entire game when playing against me. If they can win consistently under that time constraint, to me it seems like they are superhuman.
Friday, January 7, 2011
Thanks for Banning Me
In retrospect, I am delighted to be banned from FICS.
There are numerous alternatives for playing chess online. By forcing me out of FICS, the admin did me a favor. I found a better community, easier to use, with many more players and a better designed interface.
I would probably never have left FICS had I not been banned, because I'm a creature of habit and had even become an enthusiast, which is one of my faults, reducing my level of objectivity. I had evaluated FICS as being much better than it is. I liked it so much that I was mentioning it to all my chessplaying friends. I had even added a link to FICS, just a few days before being banned. What irony--and foolishness on my part. All of that is over now, a mistake in the past, now corrected.
I can't think of a better Christmas present than to be banned from FICS, which requires the use of software that has not been updated since 2007. Yet the worst shortcoming is an obtuse admin, incapable or unwilling to communicate with others. I say let the trolls play with the trolls. Perhaps they will find solutions for one another. Players that deport themselves like gentlemen can find a better community with just a little searching. I confess I'm reluctant to offer a link to my new chess community. It seems bad luck. Once bitten, twice shy.
There are numerous alternatives for playing chess online. By forcing me out of FICS, the admin did me a favor. I found a better community, easier to use, with many more players and a better designed interface.
I would probably never have left FICS had I not been banned, because I'm a creature of habit and had even become an enthusiast, which is one of my faults, reducing my level of objectivity. I had evaluated FICS as being much better than it is. I liked it so much that I was mentioning it to all my chessplaying friends. I had even added a link to FICS, just a few days before being banned. What irony--and foolishness on my part. All of that is over now, a mistake in the past, now corrected.
I can't think of a better Christmas present than to be banned from FICS, which requires the use of software that has not been updated since 2007. Yet the worst shortcoming is an obtuse admin, incapable or unwilling to communicate with others. I say let the trolls play with the trolls. Perhaps they will find solutions for one another. Players that deport themselves like gentlemen can find a better community with just a little searching. I confess I'm reluctant to offer a link to my new chess community. It seems bad luck. Once bitten, twice shy.
Wednesday, January 5, 2011
Sisyphus
I am reminded of the myth of Sisyphus. Sometimes when I work on something intensely, after hundreds or thousands of hours, someone thwarts my efforts, so that my efforts backfire. This is seldom accomplished through intellectual means.
I'm a good chess player. I don't know what my USCF ranking would be, but I realize that masters are much better at the game. I'm best at slow games, around twenty to thirty minutes, considered slow these days. When I was a boy, games were not timed and could last for one or two hours. My brother or I might spend ten, fifteen, twenty minutes studying a single move. I fare poorly at blitz chess, because I become fascinated by positions and want to analyze every detail, and then I run out of time. I resent having to rush through things. I like to ponder until I find the perfect solution. But blitz does have the advantage of brevity. Perhaps it serves to quicken one's calculating speed. I'm not sure. I don't think I've gotten any faster, but more likely slower as I've aged.
I spent hundreds of hours mastering an unusual chess opening, learning just about every facet of it, only to be banned from the internet chess server for what seems to me a spurious rationale pulled out of thin air. My brother had visited for Christmas, and I was so enthusiastic about the chess server that I showed him how it worked, even registering him and letting him play from my Internet connection. Such enthusiasm I had. He was the one who had taught me chess at the age of four, so I thought to repay him by teaching him about the internet chess server that I had recently discovered. I spent an hour teaching him how it worked. This was supposedly (I mean I do not believe it) interpreted by an admin as violating a rule of one person having two accounts, because it was from the same IP address. But there were two people, not one. I was interrupted in the middle of a game in which I was winning, disconnected and banned without any warning.
I had been polite to all the players and even in those cases where the players were not polite to me, I just quit playing them. I had spent months learning and perfecting an unusual opening that had given me great success. I think that my unusual opening, judged unsound by many but refuted by none, was the ultimate reason I was banned. I have noticed that some chessplayers are contemptuous of any opening that is not being currently played by one or preferably all the grandmasters. The chess world is hierarchical, the lower ranks being deferential to the best players. Some players believe we should only do what the grandmasters say to do. They read articles written by grandmasters and copy their ideas. Their play consists of rote memorization of the products of other minds. When I break them out of book, they go to pieces. Some players immediately abort the game on the very first move when they observe my opening, because they have no adequate response and can't be troubled to find one.
A few days before my ban, I defeated the wrong person, a connected person, who was angry that I had played my opening. He said it was unsound, and grandmasters didn't play it, and he didn't want to play it either, and he even told me to "go f--- myself," twice, in case I didn't process it the first time. He was either the admin himself or friends with the admin, I think, because he demonstrated a mastery of the network's technical side. It is too much of a coincidence that I am banned so soon after this nasty unprovoked altercation from a player whose very arrogance suggests he was indeed the admin. So I am banned because I play an unusual opening. This fits in with the other expectations I have developed of society.
I suppose it doesn't matter. Chess is a just a game of limited value and minority appeal. I do not have a friend who plays as well as I do. That is one of the problems with chess. Getting good at it is a double-edged sword. I am reminded of my old friend from school. At first he beat me two out of three games. A few weeks later, I beat him half the time, and that was the perfect scenario, but I kept improving. Next I was beating him almost every game, and then he stopped playing me forever, because he hated losing, but did not want to invest the time required to get better at chess, which in retrospect was a prudent choice on his part that I wish I had followed.
If I had my life to live over, I would have learned a musical instrument instead of a nerdy game that appeals to soldierly types, often men of narrow interests and deep prejudices. Music opens up a world of beauty. It allows one to connect with other beings in a way that is not possible through chess. Chess is a blood sport, of limited appeal except to warriors. But one is what one is. I suppose I would have made a good lieutenant. It is good I have not been in war in this lifetime--good for me and merciful to the foes I otherwise would have encountered.
I'm a good chess player. I don't know what my USCF ranking would be, but I realize that masters are much better at the game. I'm best at slow games, around twenty to thirty minutes, considered slow these days. When I was a boy, games were not timed and could last for one or two hours. My brother or I might spend ten, fifteen, twenty minutes studying a single move. I fare poorly at blitz chess, because I become fascinated by positions and want to analyze every detail, and then I run out of time. I resent having to rush through things. I like to ponder until I find the perfect solution. But blitz does have the advantage of brevity. Perhaps it serves to quicken one's calculating speed. I'm not sure. I don't think I've gotten any faster, but more likely slower as I've aged.
I spent hundreds of hours mastering an unusual chess opening, learning just about every facet of it, only to be banned from the internet chess server for what seems to me a spurious rationale pulled out of thin air. My brother had visited for Christmas, and I was so enthusiastic about the chess server that I showed him how it worked, even registering him and letting him play from my Internet connection. Such enthusiasm I had. He was the one who had taught me chess at the age of four, so I thought to repay him by teaching him about the internet chess server that I had recently discovered. I spent an hour teaching him how it worked. This was supposedly (I mean I do not believe it) interpreted by an admin as violating a rule of one person having two accounts, because it was from the same IP address. But there were two people, not one. I was interrupted in the middle of a game in which I was winning, disconnected and banned without any warning.
I had been polite to all the players and even in those cases where the players were not polite to me, I just quit playing them. I had spent months learning and perfecting an unusual opening that had given me great success. I think that my unusual opening, judged unsound by many but refuted by none, was the ultimate reason I was banned. I have noticed that some chessplayers are contemptuous of any opening that is not being currently played by one or preferably all the grandmasters. The chess world is hierarchical, the lower ranks being deferential to the best players. Some players believe we should only do what the grandmasters say to do. They read articles written by grandmasters and copy their ideas. Their play consists of rote memorization of the products of other minds. When I break them out of book, they go to pieces. Some players immediately abort the game on the very first move when they observe my opening, because they have no adequate response and can't be troubled to find one.
A few days before my ban, I defeated the wrong person, a connected person, who was angry that I had played my opening. He said it was unsound, and grandmasters didn't play it, and he didn't want to play it either, and he even told me to "go f--- myself," twice, in case I didn't process it the first time. He was either the admin himself or friends with the admin, I think, because he demonstrated a mastery of the network's technical side. It is too much of a coincidence that I am banned so soon after this nasty unprovoked altercation from a player whose very arrogance suggests he was indeed the admin. So I am banned because I play an unusual opening. This fits in with the other expectations I have developed of society.
I suppose it doesn't matter. Chess is a just a game of limited value and minority appeal. I do not have a friend who plays as well as I do. That is one of the problems with chess. Getting good at it is a double-edged sword. I am reminded of my old friend from school. At first he beat me two out of three games. A few weeks later, I beat him half the time, and that was the perfect scenario, but I kept improving. Next I was beating him almost every game, and then he stopped playing me forever, because he hated losing, but did not want to invest the time required to get better at chess, which in retrospect was a prudent choice on his part that I wish I had followed.
If I had my life to live over, I would have learned a musical instrument instead of a nerdy game that appeals to soldierly types, often men of narrow interests and deep prejudices. Music opens up a world of beauty. It allows one to connect with other beings in a way that is not possible through chess. Chess is a blood sport, of limited appeal except to warriors. But one is what one is. I suppose I would have made a good lieutenant. It is good I have not been in war in this lifetime--good for me and merciful to the foes I otherwise would have encountered.
Saturday, December 18, 2010
Gays May Serve in the Military
At last. What I dreamed about at the age of twenty-two has become law in the United States: gay men and women may serve in our armed forces. I remember writing an impassioned letter to a local newspaper columnist in support of gays in the military. That letter was never published--although the columnist came out in favor of gays in the military ten years later. Whether I sowed a seed or whether another persuaded him, I have no clue.
Sexuality is not a relevant criterion for military service. Nothing more needs to be said in defense of a self-evident assertion.
HRC sent me an email that noted, in part, "Senators Joe Lieberman and Susan Collins have been our steadfast champions in this fight. Here's what Senator Lieberman said today that shows how your energy, your drive, your commitment and your focus have been behind every single step: 'This historic day has been seventeen years in the making and would not have happened without the leadership of Joe Solmonese and the Human Rights Campaign.'"
As far as I'm concerned, HRC is vindicated by this victory. I am glad that I have supported that organization.
Joe Lieberman, also, is somewhat redeemed by this in my eyes. He certainly has a new luster. I agree with Megan McCain that he would have been a far better choice for a running mate for John McCain than Sarah Palin. I probably would not have voted for them, but I would have studied the pair much more closely than I did McCain/Palin. Palin has but to speak for a minute in order to annihilate all interest.
The benefits of this prudent change in policy will be everyone in the United States, the allies of the United States, and everyone that will live in the United States or its allies in the future.
Perhaps gays may benefit, as well, although that is not at all clear to me. The military is about self-sacrifice. It is no picnic.
Sexuality is not a relevant criterion for military service. Nothing more needs to be said in defense of a self-evident assertion.
HRC sent me an email that noted, in part, "Senators Joe Lieberman and Susan Collins have been our steadfast champions in this fight. Here's what Senator Lieberman said today that shows how your energy, your drive, your commitment and your focus have been behind every single step: 'This historic day has been seventeen years in the making and would not have happened without the leadership of Joe Solmonese and the Human Rights Campaign.'"
As far as I'm concerned, HRC is vindicated by this victory. I am glad that I have supported that organization.
Joe Lieberman, also, is somewhat redeemed by this in my eyes. He certainly has a new luster. I agree with Megan McCain that he would have been a far better choice for a running mate for John McCain than Sarah Palin. I probably would not have voted for them, but I would have studied the pair much more closely than I did McCain/Palin. Palin has but to speak for a minute in order to annihilate all interest.
The benefits of this prudent change in policy will be everyone in the United States, the allies of the United States, and everyone that will live in the United States or its allies in the future.
Perhaps gays may benefit, as well, although that is not at all clear to me. The military is about self-sacrifice. It is no picnic.
Sunday, December 12, 2010
An American Heroine
I read the obituary of a great American heroine, Adele Starr.
Not many people can look back on their lives with certainty that they made a difference. Adele certainly could have done so. She helped to make the world a better place.
Not many people can look back on their lives with certainty that they made a difference. Adele certainly could have done so. She helped to make the world a better place.
Telemarketers
Telemarketers are lonely. Why else would they call, day after day, to leave a harsh automated message on one's answering machine? Out of compassion, I have decided to alleviate their loneliness by offering up their email addresses for anyone who is interested in being a pen-pal. Perhaps automated bots on the Internet can communicate with those who run automated bots on the telephone.
~*~ The Lonely Hearts List ~*~
Email
Email
Email
Email
Email
Email
Email
Email
Email
Email
Email
Email
Email
Email
Email
Email
Email
Email
Email
Email
Email
Email
Email
Email
Email
Email
Email
Email
Email
Email
Email
Email
Email
Email
Email
Email
Email
Email
Email
Email
Email
Email
Email
Email
Email
Email
Email
Email
Email
Email
Email
Email
Email
Email
Email
Email
Email
Email
Email
Email
Email
Email
Email
Email
Email
Email
Email
Email
Email
Email
Email
Email
Email
Email
Email
Email
Email
Email
Email
Email
Email
Email
Email
Email
Email
Email
Email
Email
Email
Email
Email
Email
Email
Email
Email
Email
Email
Email
Email
Email
Email
Email
Email
Email
Email
Email
Remember: True Love Waits
~*~ The Lonely Hearts List ~*~
Remember: True Love Waits
Saturday, December 11, 2010
The Savagery of the Enemy
It is not the statements or reactions of the U.S. government that makes one despise Wikileaks for aiding and abetting a traitor. Rather, it is the savagery of the Enemy -- Islamist terrorists -- who today disrupted the peace in beautiful and free Stockholm, Sweden.
Those of foreign origin who fail to appreciate the advantages of Western freedoms should be deported to their native lands in order to experience the contrast.
Those of foreign origin who fail to appreciate the advantages of Western freedoms should be deported to their native lands in order to experience the contrast.
Good News for a Change
The media harps on bad news so much that it is refreshing to catch a thread of positive change on rare occasions.
I have become an admirer of our ambassador to the U.N., Susan E. Rice. The U.S. has introduced a U.N. resolution supporting LGBT rights. It is opposed chiefly by the savages from Africa and the Middle East, who wish to continue butchering their own citizens.
I have become an admirer of our ambassador to the U.N., Susan E. Rice. The U.S. has introduced a U.N. resolution supporting LGBT rights. It is opposed chiefly by the savages from Africa and the Middle East, who wish to continue butchering their own citizens.
Tuesday, December 7, 2010
Soured on Wikileaks
The more I think about Wikileaks, the less I like it. I'm uncomfortable with the readiness that the founder has to reveal the private diplomatic communication of the United States. One can argue over whether the United States should be involved in certain areas of the world. But regardless of the disclosure, the United States will remain involved in those areas, for better or worse. The disclosure will have none of the results that Julian predicts.
Freedom of speech is a fragile liberty, new in human history. The powers-that-be will use Wikileaks as a pretext to stifle free speech elsewhere on the Internet, now and in the future. They are refining their censorship strategies and capabilities. The world will be a less free place as a result. I believe it is Julian who was short-sighted. He should have refused to publish the documents uploaded by the traitor at least for ten years, by which time their information would have grown stale, and current politicians replaced by new ones. The documents were mostly irrelevant, but moreover, his intellect was incapable of determining their relevance. Julian is a stupid man who thinks himself intelligent. Such men are among the most dangerous.
He has not been arrested yet because the powers are cunning and do not wish to make a martyr. They are playing for the hearts and minds, same as Julian. In the end, they will win. They are good at what they do. Julian is not. "Grab the headlines at any cost" strikes me as a poor strategy.
Freedom of speech is a fragile liberty, new in human history. The powers-that-be will use Wikileaks as a pretext to stifle free speech elsewhere on the Internet, now and in the future. They are refining their censorship strategies and capabilities. The world will be a less free place as a result. I believe it is Julian who was short-sighted. He should have refused to publish the documents uploaded by the traitor at least for ten years, by which time their information would have grown stale, and current politicians replaced by new ones. The documents were mostly irrelevant, but moreover, his intellect was incapable of determining their relevance. Julian is a stupid man who thinks himself intelligent. Such men are among the most dangerous.
He has not been arrested yet because the powers are cunning and do not wish to make a martyr. They are playing for the hearts and minds, same as Julian. In the end, they will win. They are good at what they do. Julian is not. "Grab the headlines at any cost" strikes me as a poor strategy.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)