I can't believe the U.S. sends food aid to North Korea. That country should be paying us tribute. Not a dime of taxpayer money should go to NK or any other fascist country. I shouldn't have to be blogging about this--it's ridiculous that our government even considers doing such stupid things. I've read the government confiscates the food and sells it at full price to those who can already afford it in the marketplace.
And good riddance to that idiotic buffoon, Kim Jong-Il, a worthless bag of gas if there ever was one. I hope his ugly, spoiled, frowny-faced son follows him to the grave as soon as possible. If only there were a coup by truly patriotic North Koreans!
Friday, December 23, 2011
Thursday, December 22, 2011
Ron Paul & the Newsletters
I'd be willing to buy that Ron Paul didn't write the incendiary passages in those newsletters of his, but ultimately, such foolishness reflects poorly upon the management skills of a leader. His name was, after all, on those newsletters. One would have hoped he would have done a competent job at overseeing their content. At the very least, he should have read and approved each and every article. That is what is implied by having one's name in the title--approval. So there are two possible conclusions for our dear Republican presidential candidate. Either he was negligent in a manner some might label gross, or he indeed wrote the articles himself or approved them after having read them. Either way, it's a bad lemon for the campaign.
Seems like most of the candidates were doomed from the get-go. Once they go double-digit in the polls, the powers-behind-the-throne unlock a skeleton from the closet and parade it in the media. The candidates don't really know how to handle a media firestorm, and maybe there is no way to handle it.
I still think Ron Paul is better than many of the other candidates, however. I really like his non-interventionist foreign policy. His views on the economy have relevance. Although many of his detractors claim that he has radical views, in reality it is they who have the radical views, while his are more consistent with the mainstream. Ron Paul is often the only one talking in the whole debates that makes a lick of sense. The others are history, language and thinking -challenged. They smile and shake their heads, as if they are hearing a fantasy, when Ron Paul says quite obvious things that are true. The others tend to march in lockstep with their party's social conservatives. It is clear that they have been told what they are to say, how they are supposed to feel, how they must think. On the other hand, Ron Paul has decided for himself how he will speak, how he will feel, what he will think. That is both original and refreshing. One is willing to forgive quite a bit of such a leader.
Conservative Jews are all in a lather against Ron Paul (see the WSJ for a completely rabid over-the-top attack on Ron Paul as "home-grown propagandist for our chief enemies" by Lyinbitchowitz), for one reason, because he might cut aid to Israel. Siphoning funds from our bank accounts on behalf of Tel Aviv has been a long-time favorite of some of the Jews in America, and they pretty much compel every Presidential candidate to swear fealty to the cause of Israel no matter what the cost to the U.S.
I support Ron Paul because of the enemies he makes. If the powers-that-be like the owners of the WSJ are against Ron Paul, then he might be good, because WSJ is a newspaper that prints lies with regularity and is in part responsible for the financial crisis and the financial meltdown. Why didn't the WSJ raise any alarm about the conditions prior to the financial meltdown? Why did the WSJ snooze through the first ten years of this century? I think the WSJ is a chief enemy of the United States, not Ron Paul. The WSJ represents everything that is wrong in this country and the people who create financial problems for the United States.
The one thing I dislike about Ron Paul is that he is big on freedom when it comes to big business, but he's not so keen when it comes to personal freedoms like abortion. If I were a woman, I'd want the right to abort.
Seems like most of the candidates were doomed from the get-go. Once they go double-digit in the polls, the powers-behind-the-throne unlock a skeleton from the closet and parade it in the media. The candidates don't really know how to handle a media firestorm, and maybe there is no way to handle it.
I still think Ron Paul is better than many of the other candidates, however. I really like his non-interventionist foreign policy. His views on the economy have relevance. Although many of his detractors claim that he has radical views, in reality it is they who have the radical views, while his are more consistent with the mainstream. Ron Paul is often the only one talking in the whole debates that makes a lick of sense. The others are history, language and thinking -challenged. They smile and shake their heads, as if they are hearing a fantasy, when Ron Paul says quite obvious things that are true. The others tend to march in lockstep with their party's social conservatives. It is clear that they have been told what they are to say, how they are supposed to feel, how they must think. On the other hand, Ron Paul has decided for himself how he will speak, how he will feel, what he will think. That is both original and refreshing. One is willing to forgive quite a bit of such a leader.
Conservative Jews are all in a lather against Ron Paul (see the WSJ for a completely rabid over-the-top attack on Ron Paul as "home-grown propagandist for our chief enemies" by Lyinbitchowitz), for one reason, because he might cut aid to Israel. Siphoning funds from our bank accounts on behalf of Tel Aviv has been a long-time favorite of some of the Jews in America, and they pretty much compel every Presidential candidate to swear fealty to the cause of Israel no matter what the cost to the U.S.
I support Ron Paul because of the enemies he makes. If the powers-that-be like the owners of the WSJ are against Ron Paul, then he might be good, because WSJ is a newspaper that prints lies with regularity and is in part responsible for the financial crisis and the financial meltdown. Why didn't the WSJ raise any alarm about the conditions prior to the financial meltdown? Why did the WSJ snooze through the first ten years of this century? I think the WSJ is a chief enemy of the United States, not Ron Paul. The WSJ represents everything that is wrong in this country and the people who create financial problems for the United States.
The one thing I dislike about Ron Paul is that he is big on freedom when it comes to big business, but he's not so keen when it comes to personal freedoms like abortion. If I were a woman, I'd want the right to abort.
Sunday, December 18, 2011
Funny?
Is it bad to think this story is funny? I don't know.
Poster boy of transgender servicemen, Bradley Manning is not. I imagine a thousand mascaraed lashes rolling Heavenward.
Poster boy of transgender servicemen, Bradley Manning is not. I imagine a thousand mascaraed lashes rolling Heavenward.
Friday, December 16, 2011
Oil Changes
Finally, the world is waking up to the fact that cars don't need oil changes every 3,000 miles.
For decades, I read that cars need an oil change every 3,500 miles, and each time, I thought to myself, "What a great lie those oil companies are spinning--how profitable!" And think of all the Jiffy Lube's that benefited from the pile of horse crap.
How'd I know? I read the manual for my 1982 Honda Civic. It said change the oil every 7,500 miles. The manufacturer would not have put that information in the manual if he thought it would make his product less reliable. So I always changed my oil after a year or two or 7,500 miles, whichever came first. In cases where the engine is old and burns oil or where the oil turns pitch black, I change sooner.
Apparently, high oil prices are the reason for the increased publicity counteracting the marvelous profit-making lie that extracted $20-$50 every 3,000 miles from legions of gullible car owners.
For decades, I read that cars need an oil change every 3,500 miles, and each time, I thought to myself, "What a great lie those oil companies are spinning--how profitable!" And think of all the Jiffy Lube's that benefited from the pile of horse crap.
How'd I know? I read the manual for my 1982 Honda Civic. It said change the oil every 7,500 miles. The manufacturer would not have put that information in the manual if he thought it would make his product less reliable. So I always changed my oil after a year or two or 7,500 miles, whichever came first. In cases where the engine is old and burns oil or where the oil turns pitch black, I change sooner.
Apparently, high oil prices are the reason for the increased publicity counteracting the marvelous profit-making lie that extracted $20-$50 every 3,000 miles from legions of gullible car owners.
Curbing Animal Research
I applaud these efforts to curb animal research in laboratories. Especially in cases where the only thing at stake is mere profit, animals should not be considered for painful or harmful laboratory experiments. Where human lives are at stake, then animal research may be alright, if necessary in order to proceed with discovery. I think a judge should be the arbitrator, a judge armed with a law that expresses a general philosophy with guidelines rather than a thousand-page law of specific rules for every conceivable case (inevitably there will be cases that would fall outside any such law).
Gingrich
There is no reason to take anything Gingrich says seriously. His intelligence and all of his feelings have to do with power and nothing else. Wives come and go, friends come and go, allies come and go, but what remains is the overwhelming desire for easy money, influence and most of all, power. He's about as intelligent as I am without my ethics. I look at him and I see me without morals. I've seen him on the Daily Show. He's willing to lie repeatedly and mislead in order to further his ends. Truth means nothing to him. All he is concerned about is sounding plausible and misleading just enough people to stay in the game of politics, where he intends to make money and be a powerful croaking frog.
He definitely has the will to power, but what good is it? I don't know that he ever considered for an instant what he will leave behind. I suppose that when human beings are viewed as nothing more than convenient means to selfish ends, then for him the sole goal is ego gratification and nothing else. That makes Gingrich an exceptionally boring individual. I do not think he will be remembered in quite the manner that he would prefer. I look at his photo and I see a sugar cookie with two rancid raisins for eyes.
He definitely has the will to power, but what good is it? I don't know that he ever considered for an instant what he will leave behind. I suppose that when human beings are viewed as nothing more than convenient means to selfish ends, then for him the sole goal is ego gratification and nothing else. That makes Gingrich an exceptionally boring individual. I do not think he will be remembered in quite the manner that he would prefer. I look at his photo and I see a sugar cookie with two rancid raisins for eyes.
Thursday, December 15, 2011
Romantic Love as Sold by the Music Industry
I think that in every case of romantic love in my life, where I fell in love with a person, it was, at least in part, inculcated, instigated and nurtured by many Rock-n-Roll, Country, or even Folk songs that I listened to over and over again until I had memorized the plot and meaning of the lyrics and the music.
Rock-n-Roll songs often deal with observations about romantic love. These dramatic works do not admit to shades of gray or the complexity and fluidity of human emotions and allegiances, but deal with simple, stupid and unrealistic absolutes. Music industry songs are the disembodied fantasies of calculating business people intent upon selling their products, which are highly desirable fantasies that replace a tepid reality in the user, who is motivated to replace his reality. The songs have little or no relation to the reality experienced by the billions, and therein lies their danger. Because they are nice to listen to and sweet honey to the receptive mind, they can influence people to make uncharacteristically stupid decisions and to be very gullible. In that way, Rock-n-Roll can serve the same function as a drug and even be more dangerous than a drug.
Rock-n-Roll songs often deal with observations about romantic love. These dramatic works do not admit to shades of gray or the complexity and fluidity of human emotions and allegiances, but deal with simple, stupid and unrealistic absolutes. Music industry songs are the disembodied fantasies of calculating business people intent upon selling their products, which are highly desirable fantasies that replace a tepid reality in the user, who is motivated to replace his reality. The songs have little or no relation to the reality experienced by the billions, and therein lies their danger. Because they are nice to listen to and sweet honey to the receptive mind, they can influence people to make uncharacteristically stupid decisions and to be very gullible. In that way, Rock-n-Roll can serve the same function as a drug and even be more dangerous than a drug.
Groups
The story of how Iran cracked our drone's security is appalling.
I don't consider myself an expert on security-related matters, but I certainly would never have approved such a system that is in place in our Sentinel drones. The vulnerability is obvious. In fact not very much intelligence is required at all to see the weakness in the system. I can only conclude that the top brass in our military may be swift on military tactics, but apparently is in the dark about other matters, for instance relating to computers and engineering. In other words, they are narrow geeks with limited vision. I suspect the military is being just as mismanaged as our financial corporations have proven to be. There seems to be a rot in the system, or maybe there always was.
Perhaps all nations and all ages suffer from pure negligence. It is easy for a man to sort his own affairs. It is when men get together and form a group that individual intelligence ceases to apply. The perfect dictatorship of an intelligent mind, esteemed by Plato, is replaced by the cacophony of voices, some informed, some not; some wise, some not. And who is to sort through all the voices? Sometimes the loudest voice prevails, but loudness is not akin to correctness.
Groups are too recent an innovation in our evolution and maybe that is why we have not perfected them yet. It is difficult to identify a single group of more than a hundred members that operates with efficiency and enlightenment.
I don't consider myself an expert on security-related matters, but I certainly would never have approved such a system that is in place in our Sentinel drones. The vulnerability is obvious. In fact not very much intelligence is required at all to see the weakness in the system. I can only conclude that the top brass in our military may be swift on military tactics, but apparently is in the dark about other matters, for instance relating to computers and engineering. In other words, they are narrow geeks with limited vision. I suspect the military is being just as mismanaged as our financial corporations have proven to be. There seems to be a rot in the system, or maybe there always was.
Perhaps all nations and all ages suffer from pure negligence. It is easy for a man to sort his own affairs. It is when men get together and form a group that individual intelligence ceases to apply. The perfect dictatorship of an intelligent mind, esteemed by Plato, is replaced by the cacophony of voices, some informed, some not; some wise, some not. And who is to sort through all the voices? Sometimes the loudest voice prevails, but loudness is not akin to correctness.
Groups are too recent an innovation in our evolution and maybe that is why we have not perfected them yet. It is difficult to identify a single group of more than a hundred members that operates with efficiency and enlightenment.
Tuesday, December 13, 2011
Listening
The older I get, the more I prize congenial relations with others. I'm less eager to look for slights and quicker to empathize with other people. I find that I've learned valuable ways of promoting good will and that I prize these skills much more than my other skills, certainly more than my technical skills. I have learned that by expecting, bringing notice to, and rewarding good behavior in others, one encourages its recurrence. It is good to be liked and respected, and a bad thing to be held in contempt, to be despised. Yet someone who has known respect and admiration for a long time grows in confidence so that the occasional exception, when encountered in strangers, is of no consequence at all.
One who is ethical is usually very concerned with the opinions of others, and well he should be, because other people serve as sounding boards for his own opinions. He might not trust in his own reasoning completely, because of the plausible expectation that there may be a mistake, great or trivial, in his reasoning or in the data in the formulae. Human beings get things wrong often enough that it is well to listen to the observations of others.
One who is ethical is usually very concerned with the opinions of others, and well he should be, because other people serve as sounding boards for his own opinions. He might not trust in his own reasoning completely, because of the plausible expectation that there may be a mistake, great or trivial, in his reasoning or in the data in the formulae. Human beings get things wrong often enough that it is well to listen to the observations of others.
Monday, December 12, 2011
Romney Vs. Gingrich? What Kind of Choice is That?
I don't give two hoots about Romney's $10,000 bet. If the Republicans are down to Romney versus Gingrich, I'm for Romney, because he at least has a lick of common sense and is willing to listen to other viewpoints. Gingrich is a faux intellectual, a puffed-up frog that thinks he knows it all. The other day he delivered a Christmas present to the Palestinians and their brethren, the Arabs, calling the Palestinians a made-up people with no basis in history. Gee, G'rinch, can't the same be said about the Israelis? I suppose G'rinch points to the Bible, countering that Israel existed for a brief moment in ancient history before being crushed by neighboring empires. That's a thin reed, G'rinch. Mighty thin. If G'rinch leads the country, he will be worse than Bush.
Maybe G'rinch is just a decoy employed by the powers-behind-the-throne (the owners) to make us happy to see Romney finally emerge as the candidate. I still think Jon Huntsman is the best candidate in the G.O.P., by far, but Republicans are far too stupid to pick him. Second-best candidate is Ron Paul, but Republicans are too stupid to pick him either.
Maybe G'rinch is just a decoy employed by the powers-behind-the-throne (the owners) to make us happy to see Romney finally emerge as the candidate. I still think Jon Huntsman is the best candidate in the G.O.P., by far, but Republicans are far too stupid to pick him. Second-best candidate is Ron Paul, but Republicans are too stupid to pick him either.
Sunday, December 11, 2011
Technology
Our ancestors would be shocked by the technology that we take for granted. Moving pictures on a screen would seem like magic. There was nothing comparable to television hundreds of years ago. It is quite a leap to visualize our grand technological idea that data can be transmitted through the air via radio waves that are invisible to our sight and completely undetectable by our other senses, and this data can be reproduced using a natural force of electricity and producing artificial light in fine colors and resolution, not just for short bursts but continuously. They would be amazed and think it was magic. I wonder what gadgets of the future would inspire in me a similar wonder? A time machine, I think. That to me would be magic. Or a device, such as a cloak, that rendered a person invisible. I would not understand these things, but they would delight me. Maybe magic is and always was just science that was beyond our current level of understanding.
Wednesday, November 30, 2011
Teachers
I'm reminded of my middle-school chess club. Our faculty sponsor had just learned how to play. Everybody in the club could beat him. He had so little interest in chess, I could only suppose he sponsored the club because that was the way teachers got ahead in their careers, by doing extracurricular crap, and chess sounded easy and air-conditioned as opposed to strenuous basketball, etc. The extent of his involvement with our chess club was posing for the yearbook photo.
I read in TIME magazine the other day that in Norway teachers are respected professionals like doctors and lawyers. They are not crapped on by politicians as they are here in the U.S., where the rich want the poor to be ignorant slave labor like it was in the good old days, before the War of Northern Aggression. In Norway, teachers are required to have Master's degrees. That means they have something going on upstairs. In my schools, there was some dead wood along with the good teachers. I mean, there was good and bad. It was a mixed salad. Some people went into teaching because it was their true calling, while others did it because they couldn't do anything else.
I think teachers should earn a minimum of $50K per year in today's economy (and no, that's not too much money) with excellent medical and dental benefits, and their jobs should not be guaranteed (I don't believe in tenure). I think Master's degrees are a good idea actually. Anyone who teaches should be pretty damn comfortable with academia. I remember one of my teachers told us he scored a 1000 on the S.A.T. That was on the same day that he told the class we were all a bunch of losers destined to dig ditches. Yep, I've had some crappy teachers in my day, but you know what, the system is rotten because the system put them in the classroom.
Spend more money on education and less on bombing faraway countries, and the country might become more intellectual and capable of understanding and thriving in this complicated world. People have been saying this for decades--all my life--but most people continue voting conservative, Republican, anti-progress, anti-hope and every which way to ensure that the U.S. will continue its long and steady decline.
I read in TIME magazine the other day that in Norway teachers are respected professionals like doctors and lawyers. They are not crapped on by politicians as they are here in the U.S., where the rich want the poor to be ignorant slave labor like it was in the good old days, before the War of Northern Aggression. In Norway, teachers are required to have Master's degrees. That means they have something going on upstairs. In my schools, there was some dead wood along with the good teachers. I mean, there was good and bad. It was a mixed salad. Some people went into teaching because it was their true calling, while others did it because they couldn't do anything else.
I think teachers should earn a minimum of $50K per year in today's economy (and no, that's not too much money) with excellent medical and dental benefits, and their jobs should not be guaranteed (I don't believe in tenure). I think Master's degrees are a good idea actually. Anyone who teaches should be pretty damn comfortable with academia. I remember one of my teachers told us he scored a 1000 on the S.A.T. That was on the same day that he told the class we were all a bunch of losers destined to dig ditches. Yep, I've had some crappy teachers in my day, but you know what, the system is rotten because the system put them in the classroom.
Spend more money on education and less on bombing faraway countries, and the country might become more intellectual and capable of understanding and thriving in this complicated world. People have been saying this for decades--all my life--but most people continue voting conservative, Republican, anti-progress, anti-hope and every which way to ensure that the U.S. will continue its long and steady decline.
N.O.M. Morons
The morons in the National Organization for Marriage (and Scotland for Marriage) should be for people getting married, if the name of their organization meant anything at all. Instead, they are opposed to people getting married. That suggests to me that they misunderstand the meaning of the word "for". I suggest that they return to elementary school and learn English before getting involved in politics.
People that do not have a basic intelligence, say at the fifth-grade level, should not be permitted the vote under any circumstances. A simple one-question test should be given to every voter in the booth to ascertain that he can solve a quadratic equation, one that is randomly created by a computer program. Anyone that cannot solve a quadratic equation has no business deciding who will lead the country. Their votes should be discarded, and they should be referred to the nearest elementary school to continue their education with their peers.
People that do not have a basic intelligence, say at the fifth-grade level, should not be permitted the vote under any circumstances. A simple one-question test should be given to every voter in the booth to ascertain that he can solve a quadratic equation, one that is randomly created by a computer program. Anyone that cannot solve a quadratic equation has no business deciding who will lead the country. Their votes should be discarded, and they should be referred to the nearest elementary school to continue their education with their peers.
Chess
It is disconcerting that players that normally would never win against me are able to beat me on my bad days. My playing strength varies a great deal. I think it has to do with stamina and physical fitness. Chess is extremely demanding intellectually and even physically due to the great strain of making fast and accurate calculations in games that often permit less than twenty minutes per side. On certain days, I see many moves quickly, but on bad days, my thought processes slow down, with devastating impact to performance. I would characterize my strength as erratic.
I would like to be more consistent, of course, but there are many things one would like to happen. . . The best I can do is to manage, avoiding chess on my slow days and only playing when I feel strong.
I would like to be more consistent, of course, but there are many things one would like to happen. . . The best I can do is to manage, avoiding chess on my slow days and only playing when I feel strong.
Breaking Bad
Breaking Bad is a good show about a bad man I just started watching. It's about a guy who lives a normal middle-class life until he decides to start manufacturing meth for profit and to bolster his own self-esteem. I think he does it not for the money but just to show to himself that he could do it, make a fortune and get away with it. He is trying to validate his sense of self-worth, which has been battered by unfavorable comparisons to his brother-in-law and more successful old acquaintances.
It is strange indeed how the audience sympathizes and identifies with a manufacturer of meth. I consider meth possibly the most dangerous scheduled recreational drug in existence. I had to specify 'scheduled,' because there are more dangerous legal substances that our government has overlooked in its ignorance, incoherency and negligence. I feel no need to mention them here. They are not of interest to me.
Before watching the show, I felt that dealers in meth were dealers in death, the scum of the earth. After watching the show, I note shades of gray in their business. Their product I researched on Wikipedia. Meth has been around for about sixty years or so and was stockpiled by the Japanese military during WW2. It was used by their kamikazi pilots. In the short term, it offers certain benefits in terms of alertness--if dosage is measured precisely in order to avoid paranoia, the jitters and other side effects. I suppose small doses might make a front-line soldier more effective for a few hours before his death, if he is suffering from malnutrition or injury. For a country at peace, meth has no real purpose and, worse, is toxic to the human body, even in its pure form. I did not like the word I saw on the Wikipedia article, "neurotoxic."
I would place meth dealers in a similar category as manufacturers of cigarettes, except meth dealers are worse, because their product is more dangerous. Are they evil? Yes. But do they deserve prison for manufacturing or distributing meth? That is the tricky question, fraught with baggage that has implications for civil rights.
Should meth be legal? Do I have a right to ban it just because I despise it? Reluctantly, for the sake of consistency, I would say, meth should be legal, but its sale controlled, just as we control the sale of alcohol, but with even more controls in order to make assurances for purity and safety. I believe legality removes much of the violence and poisoning associated with the meth trade. It is a bad product, yes, used by fools, but fools will find their poison. I think that is the point of the show. Make something illegal, and it sometimes becomes more attractive than would otherwise be the case. The crime associated with illegal drugs is worse than the illegal drugs themselves. If all drugs were legal, the cartels would be placed in a very difficult situation. They could turn their hand to prostitution, but that is a far more difficult trade than the drug trade. Drugs are comparatively easy money, and whenever there is easy money, wicked men will kill for it.
The reason not to use meth is simple. It is toxic and harmful and capable of killing the user. It is also extremely addictive. The only reason I can see for people trying it is that they have a death wish, they are flirting with Old Mr. Bones. People have their reasons for wanting to die. The pleasure meth might bring is short-lived and just not worth the trouble. All these things are immediately obvious to most people. Most people would not be willing even to try meth. That is why making meth legal is not a bad thing. I would not use it even if it were dispensed in vending machines on every street corner for twenty-five cents. Just knowing it is bad for you is enough. For the same reason, I avoid coca-cola and cigarettes, although their harm is much less.
It is strange indeed how the audience sympathizes and identifies with a manufacturer of meth. I consider meth possibly the most dangerous scheduled recreational drug in existence. I had to specify 'scheduled,' because there are more dangerous legal substances that our government has overlooked in its ignorance, incoherency and negligence. I feel no need to mention them here. They are not of interest to me.
Before watching the show, I felt that dealers in meth were dealers in death, the scum of the earth. After watching the show, I note shades of gray in their business. Their product I researched on Wikipedia. Meth has been around for about sixty years or so and was stockpiled by the Japanese military during WW2. It was used by their kamikazi pilots. In the short term, it offers certain benefits in terms of alertness--if dosage is measured precisely in order to avoid paranoia, the jitters and other side effects. I suppose small doses might make a front-line soldier more effective for a few hours before his death, if he is suffering from malnutrition or injury. For a country at peace, meth has no real purpose and, worse, is toxic to the human body, even in its pure form. I did not like the word I saw on the Wikipedia article, "neurotoxic."
I would place meth dealers in a similar category as manufacturers of cigarettes, except meth dealers are worse, because their product is more dangerous. Are they evil? Yes. But do they deserve prison for manufacturing or distributing meth? That is the tricky question, fraught with baggage that has implications for civil rights.
Should meth be legal? Do I have a right to ban it just because I despise it? Reluctantly, for the sake of consistency, I would say, meth should be legal, but its sale controlled, just as we control the sale of alcohol, but with even more controls in order to make assurances for purity and safety. I believe legality removes much of the violence and poisoning associated with the meth trade. It is a bad product, yes, used by fools, but fools will find their poison. I think that is the point of the show. Make something illegal, and it sometimes becomes more attractive than would otherwise be the case. The crime associated with illegal drugs is worse than the illegal drugs themselves. If all drugs were legal, the cartels would be placed in a very difficult situation. They could turn their hand to prostitution, but that is a far more difficult trade than the drug trade. Drugs are comparatively easy money, and whenever there is easy money, wicked men will kill for it.
The reason not to use meth is simple. It is toxic and harmful and capable of killing the user. It is also extremely addictive. The only reason I can see for people trying it is that they have a death wish, they are flirting with Old Mr. Bones. People have their reasons for wanting to die. The pleasure meth might bring is short-lived and just not worth the trouble. All these things are immediately obvious to most people. Most people would not be willing even to try meth. That is why making meth legal is not a bad thing. I would not use it even if it were dispensed in vending machines on every street corner for twenty-five cents. Just knowing it is bad for you is enough. For the same reason, I avoid coca-cola and cigarettes, although their harm is much less.
Tuesday, November 29, 2011
The Simple Truth
The simple truth is that if you do all the right things, work hard, study, make good grades, and show initiative, you get nowhere in America. Hard work means nothing, and initiative means nothing. The owners decided a long time ago to outsource jobs to China. So all of the old mechanisms such as college don't work anymore for the middle class. You either have money or you don't and you never will. This is no longer the land of opportunity. It is the land of the McJob. And if you get cancer or some other ailment, best get ready for the boneyard. That is why the birth rate is down in this country, way down.
Reincarnation
Our atoms were once part of a multitude of things and beings before becoming us. The notion that we have a soul that survives death is a charming illusion nurtured by the ego, which fears its inevitable annihilation and yearns for permanence. People are ruled by fear to a large extent. As a myth, reincarnation is not without value, because it encourages sympathy with animals and encourages us to look for human traits in animals. I have found that cats and dogs have a certain intelligence that is different from ours in some ways and similar in others. I do not understand it completely. They grasp certain things at once that might elude a human, but are forever mystified by things that seem obvious to us.
Monday, November 28, 2011
Herman Cain
Herman Cain's sexual conduct is not germane to his run for the Presidency. As far as can be discerned, all of the candidates running for President are in possession of genitalia that they probably have used at one point or another in their long, sweet and easy lives in a manner that they would not wish everyone to discover. I won't vote for Cain because he does not understand. Period.
Saturday, November 26, 2011
Alekhine's Defense
I love Alekhine's Defense, specifically the Brooklyn Defense, which wins me games in part due to its obscurity. There is considerable shock value in resetting Black's position on the second move. It is quite natural for White to feel contempt for the opening, which apparently achieves nothing after the second move, but is the contempt justified? In the following game, my opponent underestimated it--and me--and was shocked to find himself on the losing end.
I am not sure whether I played the best moves in this game, but I have no complaint with the result. I would hazard a guess that my opponent played too passively. Alekhine's is a scrap, nothing else to say about it, and those who expect the initial peace and calm of something along the lines of a Benko's Opening are in for a surprise.
[White "anon"]
[Black "igor"]
[Result "0-1"]
[WhiteElo "1856"]
[BlackElo "1882"]
[TimeControl "900"]
1. e4 Nf6 2. e5 Ng8 3. d4 d6 4. exd6 Qxd6
To recapture with a pawn is just too passive for Black in my opinion, although it may appeal to players of the Sicilian.
5. c4?
A mistake, in my opinion, albeit a tempting move for White because it resembles the usual pawn structure of the Queen's Gambit.
5. .. e5?!
I don't see why I can't play this move, but I have a strange feeling there could be a refutation out there. Until someone shows me the error of my ways, I intend to continue. Perhaps 6. d5 is White's best response, but I'm not quite sure yet.
6. Nf3? exd4!
White's center takes a hit. I believe I have at least equalized. White's pawn on c4 merely deprives his King's bishop of a good post. I actually tried 6. .. e4? in the past, but it's a bad idea to leave White's center intact, and defending the pawn on e4 is not really feasible.
7. Qxd4 Nc6 8. Qd3?
White would be better off trading Queens rather than giving me more tempos.
8. .. Bg4
No unnecessary pawn moves for me. After my first two 'crazy' moves, I adhere to the maxim of rapid development.
9. Nbd2?
Just too passive and reactionary. White needs to play bolder moves and sooner rather than later.
9. .. O-O-O!
Not looking good for White. I imagine he is sweating now.
10. Qxd6
Finally White wises up and gets rid of my irritating Queen.
10. .. Bxd6 11. Be2?
Again, just too passive. One does not win games through defense alone.
11. .. Nf6 12. O-O Rhe8
My development is complete, but White has a bishop stuck on the bottom rank and his rooks are idle.
13. Re1 Nb4!
Threatening a fork.
14. Nd4
I found this position complicated and spent three minutes pondering it, which seems excessive. I hadn't drunk enough tea this morning. White's potential Bxg4+ kept coming up again and again in my calculations. In the end, I decided I had to take the bishop and be done with it or else risk giving White a critical tempo.
14. .. Bxe2 15. Rxe2 Bf4!
My dark-squared bishop was idle, so I found employment for it. White's weak spot is clearly the knight on d2. White wants very much to move it to a more profitable square, but I do not wish to allow that. If 16. N2f3, then 16. .. Rxe2 17. Nxe2 Rd1+ and mate in the next move.
16. Rxe8 Rxe8 17. Kf1 Nd3 18. N2f3?
My opponent was moving too fast, angling for a time advantage, since I was down by four minutes. 18. N4f3 seems better for White. 18. .. Ne4 can be countered by 19. g3! and I don't get much more than a pawn for my trouble.
18. .. Bxc1 0-1
He could have played on, but I think he was annoyed at losing a piece to such an "inferior" opening. At any rate, with almost eight minutes remaining, I think I could have won. He challenged me to a rematch immediately after, but I don't like to play rematches immediately. I need downtime after a game to collect my thoughts. I like to engage in post-analysis of my games as well.
I must admit the chief appeal of Alekhine's for me is that it is not the Sicilian. Playing the most popular openings exposes one to prepared lines and novelties. Alekhine's lures White into playing Black's game. I feel that the Brooklyn Defense may be the optimal variation of the Alekhine's, if for no other reason than shock value and breaking out of book early. One of the things I never liked about the traditional Alekhine's was how White gets another free tempo (c4) and exiles Black's knight to Siberia over on b6, where it is of minimal use.
I am not sure whether I played the best moves in this game, but I have no complaint with the result. I would hazard a guess that my opponent played too passively. Alekhine's is a scrap, nothing else to say about it, and those who expect the initial peace and calm of something along the lines of a Benko's Opening are in for a surprise.
[White "anon"]
[Black "igor"]
[Result "0-1"]
[WhiteElo "1856"]
[BlackElo "1882"]
[TimeControl "900"]
1. e4 Nf6 2. e5 Ng8 3. d4 d6 4. exd6 Qxd6
To recapture with a pawn is just too passive for Black in my opinion, although it may appeal to players of the Sicilian.
5. c4?
A mistake, in my opinion, albeit a tempting move for White because it resembles the usual pawn structure of the Queen's Gambit.
5. .. e5?!
I don't see why I can't play this move, but I have a strange feeling there could be a refutation out there. Until someone shows me the error of my ways, I intend to continue. Perhaps 6. d5 is White's best response, but I'm not quite sure yet.
6. Nf3? exd4!
White's center takes a hit. I believe I have at least equalized. White's pawn on c4 merely deprives his King's bishop of a good post. I actually tried 6. .. e4? in the past, but it's a bad idea to leave White's center intact, and defending the pawn on e4 is not really feasible.
7. Qxd4 Nc6 8. Qd3?
White would be better off trading Queens rather than giving me more tempos.
8. .. Bg4
No unnecessary pawn moves for me. After my first two 'crazy' moves, I adhere to the maxim of rapid development.
9. Nbd2?
Just too passive and reactionary. White needs to play bolder moves and sooner rather than later.
9. .. O-O-O!
Not looking good for White. I imagine he is sweating now.
10. Qxd6
Finally White wises up and gets rid of my irritating Queen.
10. .. Bxd6 11. Be2?
Again, just too passive. One does not win games through defense alone.
11. .. Nf6 12. O-O Rhe8
My development is complete, but White has a bishop stuck on the bottom rank and his rooks are idle.
13. Re1 Nb4!
Threatening a fork.
14. Nd4
I found this position complicated and spent three minutes pondering it, which seems excessive. I hadn't drunk enough tea this morning. White's potential Bxg4+ kept coming up again and again in my calculations. In the end, I decided I had to take the bishop and be done with it or else risk giving White a critical tempo.
14. .. Bxe2 15. Rxe2 Bf4!
My dark-squared bishop was idle, so I found employment for it. White's weak spot is clearly the knight on d2. White wants very much to move it to a more profitable square, but I do not wish to allow that. If 16. N2f3, then 16. .. Rxe2 17. Nxe2 Rd1+ and mate in the next move.
16. Rxe8 Rxe8 17. Kf1 Nd3 18. N2f3?
My opponent was moving too fast, angling for a time advantage, since I was down by four minutes. 18. N4f3 seems better for White. 18. .. Ne4 can be countered by 19. g3! and I don't get much more than a pawn for my trouble.
18. .. Bxc1 0-1
He could have played on, but I think he was annoyed at losing a piece to such an "inferior" opening. At any rate, with almost eight minutes remaining, I think I could have won. He challenged me to a rematch immediately after, but I don't like to play rematches immediately. I need downtime after a game to collect my thoughts. I like to engage in post-analysis of my games as well.
I must admit the chief appeal of Alekhine's for me is that it is not the Sicilian. Playing the most popular openings exposes one to prepared lines and novelties. Alekhine's lures White into playing Black's game. I feel that the Brooklyn Defense may be the optimal variation of the Alekhine's, if for no other reason than shock value and breaking out of book early. One of the things I never liked about the traditional Alekhine's was how White gets another free tempo (c4) and exiles Black's knight to Siberia over on b6, where it is of minimal use.
Friday, November 25, 2011
Playing for Time
I am not especially proud of this win. I feel that Black played better moves on the whole, but he was too slow in our timed 15 minute game. This game showed me some of the vulnerabilities of the Polish (Sokolsky).
[White "igor"]
[Black "anon"]
[Result "1-0"]
[WhiteElo "1868"]
[BlackElo "1887"]
[TimeControl "1200"]
1. b4 c6
A most unusual response to the Polish, but as a Caro-Kann advocate I respect it.
2. Bb2 a5?!
A typical move that many players believe to be effective against Flank openings. It aims to create an isolated White pawn on the a-file, as well as gaining an open file for the Black rook. These supposed advantages often prove insignificant, and I feel that it wastes time on the whole. I would advocate developing a piece as being more in keeping with hypermodern theory.
3. bxa5
a3 may be better, but I did not see any future for the b4 pawn once Black has unleashed his dark-squared bishop. It seemed to me I would have lost time trying to defend the b-pawn in order to avoid a relatively small weakness in my pawn structure.
3. .. d5!
Black demonstrates savvy about the Polish, anticipating that I want to play c4. I begin to sense there will be no easy gotcha's for me in this Polish.
4. e3 Nf6 5. c4!
If Black takes, my bishop can recapture, obtaining a decent development. If he doesn't, then cxd5.
5. .. e6!?
Hemming in his light-squared bishop. While this is solid, I have my doubts.
6. Nf3
I'd love to play Bc3, supporting a5, but that confounds the development of my Queen's knight. Furthermore, it seems rash to delay development of my other pieces. Better to cede the pawn than delay development to such an extent.
6. .. Bd6
Aiming at an eventual e5.
7. Nc3?
Not an ideal square for my Queen's knight. Better may have been 7. Na3?! aiming for Nc2 and tempting Black to exchange his active bishop for a passive knight.
7. Qxa5
Might as well scoop up the pawn now and begin applying pressure to my weak Q-side.
8. Be2?!
Dismayed by Black's awareness of the Polish, I play a passive move out of character for me, with an eye to rapid castling. Stronger I think is 8. d4.
8. Nbd7 9. O-O dxc4
Black forces my bishop to move twice, emphasizing my waste of a move. Black prepares for an eventual b5. However, he does not realize that I can prevent that move if it is not played immediately.
10. Bxc4 O-O
Although Black neglects an immediate b5, he obtains sound, solid development. I see nothing amiss in Black's position and cannot come up with a plan, so I simply defend.
11. a4
With an isolated pawn, it is better to advance it, and a4 seems like a safe square. It also prevents the much-dreaded b5. It is at this point I notice that Black is taking far too long on his moves. He is not managing his time wisely and that suggests an alternative method to victory--time. I need only defend, not attack, and his clock will run out at this rate.
11. .. e5
Black liberates his light-squared bishop and threatens e4.
12. Qc2
Necessary to prevent e4.
12. .. Nb6!
Black gains a tempo and increases the pressure on a4.
13. Bb3 Bg4!
Black gains another tempo.
14. Ng5
The only reasonable move.
14. .. Nbd5 15. Nge4 Nxe4 16. Qxe4?
I should have recaptured with the knight, attacking the bishop and gaining a tempo. The Queen has no business moving.
16. .. Nf6?
16. .. f5! is stronger by far, forcing my Queen back and seizing control of the center. Perhaps Black fears the resulting pin of his knight, but his King could simply move to h8 and he'd be okay. Black's knight has an excellent post at d5, and there is no reason to move it.
17. Qc2 Bh5?!
A bit passive, although I sympathize with the goal of improving the bishop. Black could have developed the idle rook on f8 to e8, preparing for Be6 to get rid of my strong light-squared bishop.
18. Ne4?
I'm careless--nothing else to say about that move.
18. .. Nxe4 19. Qxe4 Bg6!
Black gains a tempo and a pawn.
20. Qc4 Qxd2
Chomp! Ouch.
21. Bc3?
I was hopeful this move might win some material, but no dice. As a matter of fact, it makes my position worse. Counter-intuitive Ra2 may have been preferable.
21. .. Qd3!
Black forces the trade of Queens and gains a powerful light-squared bishop. This should be the end for me, but should and is are two different things in chess. My opponent is behind in time by about a minute, and I hope to expand that time advantage through quick, skillful defense.
22. Qxd3 Bxd3 23. Rfd1 e4 24. Bc4? Bxh2+!
Ouch! I make my second goof. Black wins another pawn. I saw this shot immediately after Bc4, and premoved Kxh2 to save a few seconds. Time, I think to myself, is the only way I can win this game. Not pretty, but a fact.
25. Kxh2 Bxc4 26. Rd7!
If I expect Black to eat up his clock, I need to get some counter-play in this game, even if it ultimately leads nowhere.
26. .. Ba6?
Passive. The post at d3 is stronger and protects the e4 pawn. Better is 26. .. b5.
27. Re7
Not a good move, but a quick one. Speed is its only virtue. Black ponders one minute, far too much for my juvenile move.
27. .. Rfe8 28. Rd7 c5? 29. a5!
Now it is going to be difficult for Black to play b5. Black banked on the goal of capturing my a-pawn, and that dogma obstructed his reasoning.
29. .. Rac8 30. Rad1!
Now Black can no longer attempt a trade of rooks. It is not in my interest to simplify. I want the position to remain locked down and as complicated as possible.
30. .. h6
Black consumes thirty seconds to come up with a fairly humdrum move. He is ahead in material, but needs time to plan a breakout. I do not intend to give him much time.
31. Kg1?
A pointless move, but so what? Black spends twenty-two seconds pondering his next move.
31. .. Kf8
Black is desperate to trade rooks, and who can blame him? Time is running short.
32. g4
Probably unnecessary, but again, so what? I'm spitting out moves that are fairly innocuous, but Black ponders them like I'm Kasparov.
32. .. f6
A continuation of Black's cumbersome plan to trade rooks. I ignore it. I just want to get my King into play somehow. I found that Kg1 did not help me at all.
33. Kg2 Rc6?
I'm not sure what Black is doing here. He probably isn't sure either.
34. Kg3 Re7 35. Rd8+!
I decline the trade of rooks, of course. Too simple.
35. .. Kf7 36. R8d7!
Now if he takes my rook, I force his King to the last rank and positional Limbo, a prospect he doesn't much like.
36. .. Bd3!
Black imperils my rook and obtains a superb post for his bishop, but is it enough? I don't bother thinking about it, I just make the obvious move.
37. Rxe7+ Kxe7 38. f3!
I fear pawn and bishop chains. This one is much too threatening to tolerate, even though it can be replaced by another.
38. .. Ke6!
Effectively preventing me from playing Kf4 for the moment.
39. fxe4 Bxe4 40. Kf4 Bc2 41. Rd2 g5+ 42. Kf3 Bg6
Black blew another forty seconds coming up with that easy move.
43. Rb2 Kd5?
With less than a minute left, Black drops an important pawn.
44. Rxb7 f5 45. gxf5 Bxf5
Black has less than ten seconds left. I have four minutes. I could go take a bathroom break and still win. There's no point in notating any of the other moves. I could have played anything at all.
46. Rd7+ Rd6 47. Re7 Re6 48. Rxe6 Kxe6 49. a6 1-0
No, not a pretty win, and my play wasn't brilliant, but I was cunning and used time to my advantage.
[White "igor"]
[Black "anon"]
[Result "1-0"]
[WhiteElo "1868"]
[BlackElo "1887"]
[TimeControl "1200"]
1. b4 c6
A most unusual response to the Polish, but as a Caro-Kann advocate I respect it.
2. Bb2 a5?!
A typical move that many players believe to be effective against Flank openings. It aims to create an isolated White pawn on the a-file, as well as gaining an open file for the Black rook. These supposed advantages often prove insignificant, and I feel that it wastes time on the whole. I would advocate developing a piece as being more in keeping with hypermodern theory.
3. bxa5
a3 may be better, but I did not see any future for the b4 pawn once Black has unleashed his dark-squared bishop. It seemed to me I would have lost time trying to defend the b-pawn in order to avoid a relatively small weakness in my pawn structure.
3. .. d5!
Black demonstrates savvy about the Polish, anticipating that I want to play c4. I begin to sense there will be no easy gotcha's for me in this Polish.
4. e3 Nf6 5. c4!
If Black takes, my bishop can recapture, obtaining a decent development. If he doesn't, then cxd5.
5. .. e6!?
Hemming in his light-squared bishop. While this is solid, I have my doubts.
6. Nf3
I'd love to play Bc3, supporting a5, but that confounds the development of my Queen's knight. Furthermore, it seems rash to delay development of my other pieces. Better to cede the pawn than delay development to such an extent.
6. .. Bd6
Aiming at an eventual e5.
7. Nc3?
Not an ideal square for my Queen's knight. Better may have been 7. Na3?! aiming for Nc2 and tempting Black to exchange his active bishop for a passive knight.
7. Qxa5
Might as well scoop up the pawn now and begin applying pressure to my weak Q-side.
8. Be2?!
Dismayed by Black's awareness of the Polish, I play a passive move out of character for me, with an eye to rapid castling. Stronger I think is 8. d4.
8. Nbd7 9. O-O dxc4
Black forces my bishop to move twice, emphasizing my waste of a move. Black prepares for an eventual b5. However, he does not realize that I can prevent that move if it is not played immediately.
10. Bxc4 O-O
Although Black neglects an immediate b5, he obtains sound, solid development. I see nothing amiss in Black's position and cannot come up with a plan, so I simply defend.
11. a4
With an isolated pawn, it is better to advance it, and a4 seems like a safe square. It also prevents the much-dreaded b5. It is at this point I notice that Black is taking far too long on his moves. He is not managing his time wisely and that suggests an alternative method to victory--time. I need only defend, not attack, and his clock will run out at this rate.
11. .. e5
Black liberates his light-squared bishop and threatens e4.
12. Qc2
Necessary to prevent e4.
12. .. Nb6!
Black gains a tempo and increases the pressure on a4.
13. Bb3 Bg4!
Black gains another tempo.
14. Ng5
The only reasonable move.
14. .. Nbd5 15. Nge4 Nxe4 16. Qxe4?
I should have recaptured with the knight, attacking the bishop and gaining a tempo. The Queen has no business moving.
16. .. Nf6?
16. .. f5! is stronger by far, forcing my Queen back and seizing control of the center. Perhaps Black fears the resulting pin of his knight, but his King could simply move to h8 and he'd be okay. Black's knight has an excellent post at d5, and there is no reason to move it.
17. Qc2 Bh5?!
A bit passive, although I sympathize with the goal of improving the bishop. Black could have developed the idle rook on f8 to e8, preparing for Be6 to get rid of my strong light-squared bishop.
18. Ne4?
I'm careless--nothing else to say about that move.
18. .. Nxe4 19. Qxe4 Bg6!
Black gains a tempo and a pawn.
20. Qc4 Qxd2
Chomp! Ouch.
21. Bc3?
I was hopeful this move might win some material, but no dice. As a matter of fact, it makes my position worse. Counter-intuitive Ra2 may have been preferable.
21. .. Qd3!
Black forces the trade of Queens and gains a powerful light-squared bishop. This should be the end for me, but should and is are two different things in chess. My opponent is behind in time by about a minute, and I hope to expand that time advantage through quick, skillful defense.
22. Qxd3 Bxd3 23. Rfd1 e4 24. Bc4? Bxh2+!
Ouch! I make my second goof. Black wins another pawn. I saw this shot immediately after Bc4, and premoved Kxh2 to save a few seconds. Time, I think to myself, is the only way I can win this game. Not pretty, but a fact.
25. Kxh2 Bxc4 26. Rd7!
If I expect Black to eat up his clock, I need to get some counter-play in this game, even if it ultimately leads nowhere.
26. .. Ba6?
Passive. The post at d3 is stronger and protects the e4 pawn. Better is 26. .. b5.
27. Re7
Not a good move, but a quick one. Speed is its only virtue. Black ponders one minute, far too much for my juvenile move.
27. .. Rfe8 28. Rd7 c5? 29. a5!
Now it is going to be difficult for Black to play b5. Black banked on the goal of capturing my a-pawn, and that dogma obstructed his reasoning.
29. .. Rac8 30. Rad1!
Now Black can no longer attempt a trade of rooks. It is not in my interest to simplify. I want the position to remain locked down and as complicated as possible.
30. .. h6
Black consumes thirty seconds to come up with a fairly humdrum move. He is ahead in material, but needs time to plan a breakout. I do not intend to give him much time.
31. Kg1?
A pointless move, but so what? Black spends twenty-two seconds pondering his next move.
31. .. Kf8
Black is desperate to trade rooks, and who can blame him? Time is running short.
32. g4
Probably unnecessary, but again, so what? I'm spitting out moves that are fairly innocuous, but Black ponders them like I'm Kasparov.
32. .. f6
A continuation of Black's cumbersome plan to trade rooks. I ignore it. I just want to get my King into play somehow. I found that Kg1 did not help me at all.
33. Kg2 Rc6?
I'm not sure what Black is doing here. He probably isn't sure either.
34. Kg3 Re7 35. Rd8+!
I decline the trade of rooks, of course. Too simple.
35. .. Kf7 36. R8d7!
Now if he takes my rook, I force his King to the last rank and positional Limbo, a prospect he doesn't much like.
36. .. Bd3!
Black imperils my rook and obtains a superb post for his bishop, but is it enough? I don't bother thinking about it, I just make the obvious move.
37. Rxe7+ Kxe7 38. f3!
I fear pawn and bishop chains. This one is much too threatening to tolerate, even though it can be replaced by another.
38. .. Ke6!
Effectively preventing me from playing Kf4 for the moment.
39. fxe4 Bxe4 40. Kf4 Bc2 41. Rd2 g5+ 42. Kf3 Bg6
Black blew another forty seconds coming up with that easy move.
43. Rb2 Kd5?
With less than a minute left, Black drops an important pawn.
44. Rxb7 f5 45. gxf5 Bxf5
Black has less than ten seconds left. I have four minutes. I could go take a bathroom break and still win. There's no point in notating any of the other moves. I could have played anything at all.
46. Rd7+ Rd6 47. Re7 Re6 48. Rxe6 Kxe6 49. a6 1-0
No, not a pretty win, and my play wasn't brilliant, but I was cunning and used time to my advantage.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)