Many people seem to have a mid-life crisis, a term used to describe adultery or some other inconstancy, a breaking away from the normal and expected behavior. It is amazing, the pull that a desire for adventure can have, particularly upon a man, who is driven in part by instinct to seek adventure, even in a small or restricted way. Such a man may be pitied, praised, or ignored, depending upon the outcome of his adventure.
I really think that Americans should have forgiven former President Clinton's affair with Monica Lewinsky. His behavior was a curious and revealing lapse, possibly the most interesting thing that Clinton did during his Presidency. It was genuine and based upon a dangerous irrational passion. The act was fraught with obvious risks to his political career, his legacy, even his marriage, and yet he did it anyway, demonstrating a nature heavily invested with instinct. Clinton had the will to power. It is not any surprise that a powerful man will have a desire for frequent and enthusiastic sex. It is surprising only that people would be surprised at all to find out about it. I think that Americans are very naive.
Much was overlooked during the Presidency of Kennedy, so why not Clinton? It really was a bit hypocritical for many in Congress to hassle Clinton over the affair. It would be interesting, though impossible to know how many Congressmen have remained completely monogamous. I wonder whether the monogamous would even be a majority. Powerful men have an easy way with women, because power is an aphrodisiac.
I think the mileage that the Republicans obtained as an aftermath of the silly Lewinsky Affair really harmed the country in a number of ways. Right-wingers were able to grab a lot of power and keep for it a long time. Now we have two wars and a dismal economy, and none of the old problems from the past were addressed in an effective manner. The U.S. economy is broken, and it happened on the Republicans' watch. In addition, we have a right-wing Supreme Court. I don't know where all of this leads, but I do feel that the country has not been improving itself at all over the past ten years. I think the U.S. is going downhill in a number of ways and by any measure one would care to apply. It does worry me, but then I also keep in mind that younger people probably have more at stake then I do. It is probable that by the time things get hairy, I'll be checking out.
Sunday, April 8, 2012
All is Fair in Chess
One reason I love chess is that all is fair in chess. Think about that for a moment. How often is everything fair? In chess, both sides are about as evenly balanced as can be achieved in a turn-based game. By saying chess is fair, I mean that any opening, strategy, or tactic, if over the board, is fair. Off the board, there are disagreeable things a player can do to make the environment more obnoxious for his opponent--these things I disapprove of. But anything played on the board is fair. Thus, I do not sympathize with sore losers who find fault in their opponent for winning based upon so-called "luck." I will tell you what "luck" means in chess. If your opponent wins on luck, it is because you missed something. You were at fault, period, and you deserve to lose every single time that you lose, and you deserve to win every time that you win. Therefore it is contemptible to be a sore loser in such a game, certainly online where each player has maximum control over their environment, and the other player's influence on one's environment is negligible or nonexistent.
The other thing I love about chess is that it is universal and timeless. Many people around the world play chess, and it is possible to find a game anywhere that you go. Chess has been around for centuries and found its way into history. As for the future, computers be damned, chess will never die. Unless our intellects evolve to match that of computers, chess will always be complicated enough to challenge some of the finest minds in the world, because even they make mistakes.
The other thing I love about chess is that it is universal and timeless. Many people around the world play chess, and it is possible to find a game anywhere that you go. Chess has been around for centuries and found its way into history. As for the future, computers be damned, chess will never die. Unless our intellects evolve to match that of computers, chess will always be complicated enough to challenge some of the finest minds in the world, because even they make mistakes.
Open Season on Pedestrians?
The subtext to the spate of shootings in Tulsa, OK, is that once again, fools with guns, driving around in cars, were targeting an easy target, unarmed pedestrians who were just out walking.
Cowards in cars have always been a huge problem in the United States. They think their driver's license is a license to kill.
Anyone out walking appears to be a target for pranksters, criminals, vigilantes, police, make-believe police, and everyone else.
The irony is that walking is supposed to be healthier and better for the environment and the economy.
When I was young, I liked to walk long distances, but I'd have to think twice about that today in the wake of all these shootings of pedestrians and the epidemic of DUI drivers.
In my town, the local police department instituted a policy of setting up roadblocks about once a month somewhere in town to try to net drunk drivers and other yahoos. I have mixed feelings about police roadblocks. My desire for civil liberties conflicts with my desire for safe streets. On the one hand, I don't like the inconvenience and the random nature of the roadblock, where every driver is stopped and questioned. Is that not a violation of one's individual liberty?
On the other hand, I hate DUI drivers, and any illegal weapon seizure is probably a good thing, making our streets safer. To the extent that police roadblocks reduce the incidence of DUI or aggressive drivers, they may be a good thing. Certainly a police roadblock does not inconvenience the walker or bicyclist. Driving is a privilege, but many people abuse the privilege, and I think it is probably a good idea to take measures to detect and apprehend the many abusers. Overall, I don't like police roadblocks, but I can certainly understand the intentions, and the results may be worth the inconvenience. I expect that an accurate cost/benefit analysis must be performed by the local PD.
DUI drivers are perhaps worse than many other common criminals. I'm always sad to hear about someone becoming a victim on our nation's highways. The potential consequences of driving drunk just aren't worth risking, and any moral person would accept that. I am also opposed to public drinking. I think people should be sober when they get together. Sobriety leads to optimal relations with others, because it may be difficult to remain polite when inebriated. For me, inebriation is a seldom and a private activity. When I am around other people, I like to have control over my behavior and never be annoying or offensive, and sobriety is a good insurance of that.
Of course, anymore, I find that drinking any amount of alcohol just makes me feel bad. I don't know why. I think my body is not as good at processing alcohol as it was when I was twenty. At any rate, I avoid drink, although unlike former A.A.'ers, I will drink a single on occasion, and on rarer occasions two or three, and can limit myself quite easily. Drinking a single drink I think is my demonstration of willpower and a feeling of superiority over the beverage. I think out of sheer habit I still drink a single drink from time to time, even though much of the pleasure is gone. Really what pleases me most is a glass of tea and milk, followed by chocolate.
Cowards in cars have always been a huge problem in the United States. They think their driver's license is a license to kill.
Anyone out walking appears to be a target for pranksters, criminals, vigilantes, police, make-believe police, and everyone else.
The irony is that walking is supposed to be healthier and better for the environment and the economy.
When I was young, I liked to walk long distances, but I'd have to think twice about that today in the wake of all these shootings of pedestrians and the epidemic of DUI drivers.
In my town, the local police department instituted a policy of setting up roadblocks about once a month somewhere in town to try to net drunk drivers and other yahoos. I have mixed feelings about police roadblocks. My desire for civil liberties conflicts with my desire for safe streets. On the one hand, I don't like the inconvenience and the random nature of the roadblock, where every driver is stopped and questioned. Is that not a violation of one's individual liberty?
On the other hand, I hate DUI drivers, and any illegal weapon seizure is probably a good thing, making our streets safer. To the extent that police roadblocks reduce the incidence of DUI or aggressive drivers, they may be a good thing. Certainly a police roadblock does not inconvenience the walker or bicyclist. Driving is a privilege, but many people abuse the privilege, and I think it is probably a good idea to take measures to detect and apprehend the many abusers. Overall, I don't like police roadblocks, but I can certainly understand the intentions, and the results may be worth the inconvenience. I expect that an accurate cost/benefit analysis must be performed by the local PD.
DUI drivers are perhaps worse than many other common criminals. I'm always sad to hear about someone becoming a victim on our nation's highways. The potential consequences of driving drunk just aren't worth risking, and any moral person would accept that. I am also opposed to public drinking. I think people should be sober when they get together. Sobriety leads to optimal relations with others, because it may be difficult to remain polite when inebriated. For me, inebriation is a seldom and a private activity. When I am around other people, I like to have control over my behavior and never be annoying or offensive, and sobriety is a good insurance of that.
Of course, anymore, I find that drinking any amount of alcohol just makes me feel bad. I don't know why. I think my body is not as good at processing alcohol as it was when I was twenty. At any rate, I avoid drink, although unlike former A.A.'ers, I will drink a single on occasion, and on rarer occasions two or three, and can limit myself quite easily. Drinking a single drink I think is my demonstration of willpower and a feeling of superiority over the beverage. I think out of sheer habit I still drink a single drink from time to time, even though much of the pleasure is gone. Really what pleases me most is a glass of tea and milk, followed by chocolate.
Saturday, April 7, 2012
The Appeal of the Supernatural
When I was a young man, I shunned all superstition, everything from God to magic and mysteries and took a fierce pride in doing so. As I get older, I find superstition immensely satisfying to the childish nature that thrives on awe and wonder. I find that religious people are much more understandable and some of their joy can be perceived. Of course, religious people vary a great deal, but I have known some good ones, and fewer of the bad, because the bad I know better than to be around.
I think it is charming when otherwise educated and liberal people tell me their surprising opinions about magic, spells, homeopathy, astrology, charms, "cures," and gods and goddesses. I have learned that belief is quite common among liberals, and atheism is not in and of itself a liberal belief. When I am in a Church or a cemetery, reading the gravestones as I like to do--and so many gravestones speak of the Lord and the hereafter--sometimes I wonder if it is my destiny, as it was for so many ancestors, to convert to some belief system, either a philosophy, a theory of magic, or a religion. About all I know is that my religion would not be Islam, while unknown Hindu would be most unlikely, and although there are things such as scholarship, liberality and wisdom that I admire in Judaism, it might not be on the table either, because of the adherents' preoccupation with a narrow strip of land on the eastern shore of the Mediterranean. I never thought it was wise to place all the bets on Israel. A nomadic tribe might as well remain nomadic, because it certainly increases their odds. Being confined to a small area simply exposes a people to obvious risks.
After a survey of the competing alternatives, I decide to remain with atheism, because it seems the cautious and humble scientific approach. I don't think that any elaborate religion can pass the common sense test, and they all claim to know rather too much. How much better to say, there is a power, and it is miraculous and good, and I do not know more, other than I wish to be like it. A religion that confined itself to that sentence would be acceptable. But then, things tend to snowball after they are successful, and men have added on every manner of window dressing in the form of claimed miracles ancient and modern and other forms of divine intervention, and rules and opinions on matters that were composed by themselves, mere men, but presented as coming from infallible divine authority--preposterous to say the least. All can be debated and should be, in order that a better appreciation of the truth may be known. People get things wrong so often. When an error is discovered, it must be corrected. Every engineer would feel that way.
I had a speculative idea about Divine Providence yesterday. I'm sure it's not original, but I can't remember offhand where I got the idea, whether it was a film or a book. The thought occurred to me that the human existence, we ourselves, are like television shows for the gods, who watch us with amusement. Like a television audience, the gods do not interact with the show, other than to applaud or criticize, which we may or may not hear, depending upon our ability. Perhaps our very purpose is the same as a television show--merely to entertain or inform. The gods, if they exist, appreciate a wide variety of television shows among humans. Not only do they watch us, but they would watch the activities of life and all matter in the Universe. The sheer calculating power of all that omniscience is unimaginable. Such an intelligence would be more like a force of nature than a processor.
I suppose the human "show" is improving its story, because we are more advanced than our ancient ancestors from millions of years ago. With any luck, the humans will survive the atomic age and go on to make many more scientific discoveries and eventually unlock the secret to immortality. Will humans be the one species that continues to advance and evolve into ever more-powerful beings? Where does the improvement end? I suppose once a being has learned how to become immortal, then anything at all is possible afterward. At what point will the show merge with its audience?
I think it is charming when otherwise educated and liberal people tell me their surprising opinions about magic, spells, homeopathy, astrology, charms, "cures," and gods and goddesses. I have learned that belief is quite common among liberals, and atheism is not in and of itself a liberal belief. When I am in a Church or a cemetery, reading the gravestones as I like to do--and so many gravestones speak of the Lord and the hereafter--sometimes I wonder if it is my destiny, as it was for so many ancestors, to convert to some belief system, either a philosophy, a theory of magic, or a religion. About all I know is that my religion would not be Islam, while unknown Hindu would be most unlikely, and although there are things such as scholarship, liberality and wisdom that I admire in Judaism, it might not be on the table either, because of the adherents' preoccupation with a narrow strip of land on the eastern shore of the Mediterranean. I never thought it was wise to place all the bets on Israel. A nomadic tribe might as well remain nomadic, because it certainly increases their odds. Being confined to a small area simply exposes a people to obvious risks.
After a survey of the competing alternatives, I decide to remain with atheism, because it seems the cautious and humble scientific approach. I don't think that any elaborate religion can pass the common sense test, and they all claim to know rather too much. How much better to say, there is a power, and it is miraculous and good, and I do not know more, other than I wish to be like it. A religion that confined itself to that sentence would be acceptable. But then, things tend to snowball after they are successful, and men have added on every manner of window dressing in the form of claimed miracles ancient and modern and other forms of divine intervention, and rules and opinions on matters that were composed by themselves, mere men, but presented as coming from infallible divine authority--preposterous to say the least. All can be debated and should be, in order that a better appreciation of the truth may be known. People get things wrong so often. When an error is discovered, it must be corrected. Every engineer would feel that way.
I had a speculative idea about Divine Providence yesterday. I'm sure it's not original, but I can't remember offhand where I got the idea, whether it was a film or a book. The thought occurred to me that the human existence, we ourselves, are like television shows for the gods, who watch us with amusement. Like a television audience, the gods do not interact with the show, other than to applaud or criticize, which we may or may not hear, depending upon our ability. Perhaps our very purpose is the same as a television show--merely to entertain or inform. The gods, if they exist, appreciate a wide variety of television shows among humans. Not only do they watch us, but they would watch the activities of life and all matter in the Universe. The sheer calculating power of all that omniscience is unimaginable. Such an intelligence would be more like a force of nature than a processor.
I suppose the human "show" is improving its story, because we are more advanced than our ancient ancestors from millions of years ago. With any luck, the humans will survive the atomic age and go on to make many more scientific discoveries and eventually unlock the secret to immortality. Will humans be the one species that continues to advance and evolve into ever more-powerful beings? Where does the improvement end? I suppose once a being has learned how to become immortal, then anything at all is possible afterward. At what point will the show merge with its audience?
Friday, April 6, 2012
Chess
I believe that reflecting upon things is a very good trait and analytical ability is essential in order to maintain a good and well-structured life. In many ways I do believe that playing chess is good for the spirit, as long as one understands chess to be a metaphor for other things, rather than the only thing. I look at chess as an exercise, like lifting weights. It is not important in and of itself to win games, only to understand moves and learn to distinguish good from bad. Chess is a school with a test in every game, but no grades and no pass or fail.
Moralism
I believe that at times, particularly when blogging, I exhibit a moralistic personality akin to one-part lawyer and one-part preacher. When dealing with people in real life, I dial down the moralism and show more acceptance and tolerance, and even think and feel more, because obviously one cannot get on with others very well by being moralistic. It is not polite to nag and I do find merit in the dictum, "Judge Not, Lest Ye Be Judged," although clearly some judgements are necessary, or else the bad guys would have a field day with anyone that was good.
I am of the belief, not without foundation, that among my ancestors were at least some preachers, engineers of various stripes, and doctors (who are really engineers), and naturally many farmers (agricultural engineers) and merchants, but probably not that many soldiers or adventurers, except under the compulsion of war. Moralism does not jibe well with war. Not at all. In fact, war can be a dangerous thing for a moralistic individual.
Sometimes I do find myself offering well-intentioned, but uninvited advice. I think I am trying to help, but I am also showing off my knowledge and skill. I want to be perceived as intelligent and knowledgeable, so I think it advantageous to recite various bits and facts that I have picked up almost without effort as well as my analysis and interpretation of things. In that way I am being a preacher because I also have a desire to persuade others to my ways of thinking, to control them. This is a common among almost all people. All humans have a strong desire to control others, because it is extremely helpful. Talking about opinions and interpretations is, I think, a common trait among methodical thinkers who absorb details readily and like to do so. Anytime one is good at something, it is natural to want other people to know and mark our quality, that their opinion of us might improve. Is it not true that most people begin our acquaintance on a probationary status and only when they have proved themselves worthwhile, beneficial for some perceived quality, only then does an acquaintance advance to a distant friend. Further evidences of quality are required to advance from being a distant friend to a friend, and then additional effort is required (though it may be impossible!) to reach the inner circle of best friend or spouse.
I am of the belief, not without foundation, that among my ancestors were at least some preachers, engineers of various stripes, and doctors (who are really engineers), and naturally many farmers (agricultural engineers) and merchants, but probably not that many soldiers or adventurers, except under the compulsion of war. Moralism does not jibe well with war. Not at all. In fact, war can be a dangerous thing for a moralistic individual.
Sometimes I do find myself offering well-intentioned, but uninvited advice. I think I am trying to help, but I am also showing off my knowledge and skill. I want to be perceived as intelligent and knowledgeable, so I think it advantageous to recite various bits and facts that I have picked up almost without effort as well as my analysis and interpretation of things. In that way I am being a preacher because I also have a desire to persuade others to my ways of thinking, to control them. This is a common among almost all people. All humans have a strong desire to control others, because it is extremely helpful. Talking about opinions and interpretations is, I think, a common trait among methodical thinkers who absorb details readily and like to do so. Anytime one is good at something, it is natural to want other people to know and mark our quality, that their opinion of us might improve. Is it not true that most people begin our acquaintance on a probationary status and only when they have proved themselves worthwhile, beneficial for some perceived quality, only then does an acquaintance advance to a distant friend. Further evidences of quality are required to advance from being a distant friend to a friend, and then additional effort is required (though it may be impossible!) to reach the inner circle of best friend or spouse.
Thursday, April 5, 2012
The Wacko Nursing Student
With some interest, being a former nursing student myself, I read about the wacko ex-nursing student who went to his Christian college and shot a bunch of students, apparently at random. He didn't find the college administrator he was looking for, so he settled for anyone in sight. This is just one of many cases around the country of people that feel like they have no options career-wise or otherwise in their life, so they figure that life in prison or the death penalty is not too big a price to pay for extracting their revenge against the cruel, cruel world.
Such pointless killing indicates a failure of the imagination. After all, it is still possible for a man to retreat to one of the remote wildernesses of the world on any of the seven continents (perhaps excluding Antarctica) and live off the land, abandoning society altogether. One does not "have" to be rich, famous, loved, admired, or respected. Certainly the primitive and half-naked tribes of the world would concur.
Years ago, suicides might have hollered "Goodbye, Cruel World!" as they jumped off a multistory building, but nowadays, some people don't want to walk into that dark night alone. They want company. They feel that if their life is in ruins, why not share the suffering? Spread it around a bit, let others feel the pain they are feeling.
To be sure, the world can be difficult for those without connections, money or any kind of support network. The social safety net is inadequate in many respects. Some people are satisfied with becoming homeless and begging for loose change, while others are willing to work for next to nothing in exchange for food and shelter, while still others exhaust every possible avenue, legal or not, to try to get ahead. However, those already suffering from mental illness, such as severe or recurrent depression and anger, and who have frequent experiences of suicidal ideation--imagining, visualizing and yearning for the termination of their life--for this group of people, the added impetus of financial, social and familial ruin may push them to consider suicide. Remember, there is still no health care for a large group of people in the United States, and many Americans don't want the poor to get any health care, either. So, mental illness above all other illnesses remains unaddressed, and those who are crazy are apt to become more so. Meanwhile, firearms are easy to obtain.
Once one has decided upon suicide, then other options, evil ones indeed, present themselves. The individual who has decided upon suicide has less to fear from the death penalty or indeed any consequences. The widespread easy availability of guns makes the scenario illustrated by the wacko ex-student at the Christian college in California all the more common and frightening. One does not require any combat skill, courage, nor any physical strength to kill, because the weakest and most incompetent fool can pull the trigger of a powerful firearm.
Many people believe the answer to the murder epidemic lies in gun control. However, there is more to this particular puzzle than just gun control. Birth control also is important. If there is no longer much need for workers--and that seems to be the case due to the astronomical unemployment rate of 20 - 25% in the U.S. (the 8% figure is a lie)--then people should stop having babies altogether, until such time that good jobs become available again. I think the time has come for people to consider getting their tubes tied. Just forget about having children, because the children probably grow up to be poor or jobless in today's economy.
Apparently, there are a lot of people in the world whose work, whose very being, is unwanted, undesired or at any rate woefully underpaid and under-appreciated. These people feel left behind by the Zeitgeist. They feel abandoned by the world, outcast and alienated, and rightfully so, because they do not have a career and do not have a profession and do not have any proper or respected place in the world, nor do they have any obvious means of obtaining the same. If they had not been born in the first place, then the problem would not exist. Instinctively, they seek to address this issue by reducing the population of fellow workers through crude, random and evil deeds.
Killers of any stripe should be prosecuted and punished to the fullest extent of the law, but that does not address the underlying problems in the social fabric. Punishment addresses one individual and sets a proper precedent and creates deterrence against similar acts. My suspicion is that many killers would, if given the choice, select the death penalty in preference to life imprisonment, so I do not believe that the death penalty is a solid deterrent for all individuals. Again, those suffering from various mental illnesses, including depression, will not be deterred, but may even be attracted by the prospect of the death penalty. I believe that repeated incidents of gun violence are symptomatic of larger issues in society that need to be addressed through effective and meaningful measures, either conducted by the government or by private industry. There should not be a wasted class of people that are shut out from all opportunity and all hope; but if there is to be such a class, then society had better take all possible measures to reduce the birth rate in this class and curtail future members.
Such pointless killing indicates a failure of the imagination. After all, it is still possible for a man to retreat to one of the remote wildernesses of the world on any of the seven continents (perhaps excluding Antarctica) and live off the land, abandoning society altogether. One does not "have" to be rich, famous, loved, admired, or respected. Certainly the primitive and half-naked tribes of the world would concur.
Years ago, suicides might have hollered "Goodbye, Cruel World!" as they jumped off a multistory building, but nowadays, some people don't want to walk into that dark night alone. They want company. They feel that if their life is in ruins, why not share the suffering? Spread it around a bit, let others feel the pain they are feeling.
To be sure, the world can be difficult for those without connections, money or any kind of support network. The social safety net is inadequate in many respects. Some people are satisfied with becoming homeless and begging for loose change, while others are willing to work for next to nothing in exchange for food and shelter, while still others exhaust every possible avenue, legal or not, to try to get ahead. However, those already suffering from mental illness, such as severe or recurrent depression and anger, and who have frequent experiences of suicidal ideation--imagining, visualizing and yearning for the termination of their life--for this group of people, the added impetus of financial, social and familial ruin may push them to consider suicide. Remember, there is still no health care for a large group of people in the United States, and many Americans don't want the poor to get any health care, either. So, mental illness above all other illnesses remains unaddressed, and those who are crazy are apt to become more so. Meanwhile, firearms are easy to obtain.
Once one has decided upon suicide, then other options, evil ones indeed, present themselves. The individual who has decided upon suicide has less to fear from the death penalty or indeed any consequences. The widespread easy availability of guns makes the scenario illustrated by the wacko ex-student at the Christian college in California all the more common and frightening. One does not require any combat skill, courage, nor any physical strength to kill, because the weakest and most incompetent fool can pull the trigger of a powerful firearm.
Many people believe the answer to the murder epidemic lies in gun control. However, there is more to this particular puzzle than just gun control. Birth control also is important. If there is no longer much need for workers--and that seems to be the case due to the astronomical unemployment rate of 20 - 25% in the U.S. (the 8% figure is a lie)--then people should stop having babies altogether, until such time that good jobs become available again. I think the time has come for people to consider getting their tubes tied. Just forget about having children, because the children probably grow up to be poor or jobless in today's economy.
Apparently, there are a lot of people in the world whose work, whose very being, is unwanted, undesired or at any rate woefully underpaid and under-appreciated. These people feel left behind by the Zeitgeist. They feel abandoned by the world, outcast and alienated, and rightfully so, because they do not have a career and do not have a profession and do not have any proper or respected place in the world, nor do they have any obvious means of obtaining the same. If they had not been born in the first place, then the problem would not exist. Instinctively, they seek to address this issue by reducing the population of fellow workers through crude, random and evil deeds.
Killers of any stripe should be prosecuted and punished to the fullest extent of the law, but that does not address the underlying problems in the social fabric. Punishment addresses one individual and sets a proper precedent and creates deterrence against similar acts. My suspicion is that many killers would, if given the choice, select the death penalty in preference to life imprisonment, so I do not believe that the death penalty is a solid deterrent for all individuals. Again, those suffering from various mental illnesses, including depression, will not be deterred, but may even be attracted by the prospect of the death penalty. I believe that repeated incidents of gun violence are symptomatic of larger issues in society that need to be addressed through effective and meaningful measures, either conducted by the government or by private industry. There should not be a wasted class of people that are shut out from all opportunity and all hope; but if there is to be such a class, then society had better take all possible measures to reduce the birth rate in this class and curtail future members.
Exterior Appearances
One lesson young people learn as they get older is that some friends are only friends because they like what they see on the outside. They care less what is inside. As one gets older, one discovers the truth about one's friends. Those friends that were shallow and devoid of any soul will manufacture a plausible excuse to distance themselves. They will attempt to construct different motivations other than the simple and obvious aging process, which has rendered the outside less desirable to their base nature. There are many people in the world who judge all things, whether people or objects, based solely upon exterior appearances, either physical or related to prestige. Once such an individual has been identified, it is an easy matter to predict their actions, beliefs, opinions and future interactions with others. They are as easy to read as a primary school book.
Wednesday, April 4, 2012
Republicans
Tax time reminds me of all the loopholes in the tax code and all the ways that I get screwed by the government as punishment for working hard.
There are about a hundred roadblocks preventing me from improving my situation, and all of these roadblocks have been placed in my path by Republican lawmakers. Everything that Republicans do is designed either to harm or humiliate workers or transfer wealth from the middle class and the lower class to the government, while eliminating the tiny tax burden on the rich. That is why I tend not to vote Republican. I feel that anyone that does vote consistently Republican across the board, when there are decent alternatives available, is either rich and selfish, a hardcore social conservative, not paying sufficient attention, or just plain old stupid, or a combination thereof.
I have to admit that many Democrats have let me down through the years. Edwards, Obama, Clinton, and the list goes on. Most of the Democrats are really nothing more than socially moderate Republicans, favoring more or less the same things as the Republicans but with a somewhat more tolerant attitude toward abortion and gays.
The only thing I can say about our system of government is that it was not better in the past (I'm not ignorant of history) and it has not gotten worse. If anything, government has gotten better in some ways, but the biggest problem of all nowadays is the huge amount of money the government spends on defense, as though we are still at war with the Germans. I have news for everybody, the armistice was signed in 1945, so it's time to reap the peace dividend. I can't believe how corrupt many of our leaders are that they open the vaults of the public treasury and just let defense industry salesmen grab however many bags of money they want.
There are about a hundred roadblocks preventing me from improving my situation, and all of these roadblocks have been placed in my path by Republican lawmakers. Everything that Republicans do is designed either to harm or humiliate workers or transfer wealth from the middle class and the lower class to the government, while eliminating the tiny tax burden on the rich. That is why I tend not to vote Republican. I feel that anyone that does vote consistently Republican across the board, when there are decent alternatives available, is either rich and selfish, a hardcore social conservative, not paying sufficient attention, or just plain old stupid, or a combination thereof.
I have to admit that many Democrats have let me down through the years. Edwards, Obama, Clinton, and the list goes on. Most of the Democrats are really nothing more than socially moderate Republicans, favoring more or less the same things as the Republicans but with a somewhat more tolerant attitude toward abortion and gays.
The only thing I can say about our system of government is that it was not better in the past (I'm not ignorant of history) and it has not gotten worse. If anything, government has gotten better in some ways, but the biggest problem of all nowadays is the huge amount of money the government spends on defense, as though we are still at war with the Germans. I have news for everybody, the armistice was signed in 1945, so it's time to reap the peace dividend. I can't believe how corrupt many of our leaders are that they open the vaults of the public treasury and just let defense industry salesmen grab however many bags of money they want.
Tuesday, April 3, 2012
Andy Rooney
My Dad liked "60 Minutes," and so I watched Andy Rooney on "60 Minutes" as a child and on into my teenage years, and I never once understood his appeal. All I remember about him was that he was humorless. Rooney made frequent gratuitous digs at minorities. He seemed like a college-educated Archie Bunker. He called himself a liberal and an atheist, but I never would have guessed either of those two things. I would have characterized him as a homophobe, a racist, and a conservative. He went the atheist route just to have an excuse to offend a new group that he hadn't offended yet.
I liked the other journalists on "60 Minutes," however, and feel like they performed very useful and necessary work in the U.S.
I liked the other journalists on "60 Minutes," however, and feel like they performed very useful and necessary work in the U.S.
Monday, April 2, 2012
Strip Searches
You can now be strip searched and have your anus inspected for something as minor as a speeding ticket.
Thank the Republicans for that. Every Presidential election, there were ample warnings about the potential impact of another right wing Supreme Court appointee, but somehow the Electoral College decided in favor of the Bushes. Now the chickens are coming home to roost. When your "Bush" is inspected by a stranger with a flashlight, you can thank George W. Bush. His nominees voted in favor of granting police wide-ranging powers to undress and probe your naked body.
Thank the Republicans for that. Every Presidential election, there were ample warnings about the potential impact of another right wing Supreme Court appointee, but somehow the Electoral College decided in favor of the Bushes. Now the chickens are coming home to roost. When your "Bush" is inspected by a stranger with a flashlight, you can thank George W. Bush. His nominees voted in favor of granting police wide-ranging powers to undress and probe your naked body.
The Mamas and Papas
The Mamas and the Papas are a better group than the Beatles. I think the Beatles were overplayed and over-promoted. Radio stations in my day only played a handful of songs from Mamas and Papas, but they played the Beatles and John Lennon over and over again. In reality, the Mamas and Papas are better in every respect than the Beatles, though not John Lennon, who is tops in Rock and Roll in my book. I think the main reason that Mamas and Papas never made it as big as the Beatles was that their lyrics were too druggy, talking about the use of hard drugs like smack. Of course parents don't want their kids listening to that sort of thing, so I imagine many radio stations refused to play a lot of Mamas and Papas. It was sad to read that so many of the Mamas and Papas died of drug overdoses.
The biggest defect of the Sixties was the experimentation with addictive drugs, bad ones like heroin, cocaine, speed and pills. If people had just stayed with weed, they would have been better off. I think the government made a strategic blunder by making weed illegal. A person that tries marijuana may be tempted to make assumptions about other illegal drugs, that they are OK and do not pose any substantial risks. If marijuana had been legal, because of its harmlessness (relative to most other drugs), then the logic of the government's position would be nigh unassailable. It is the illogical nature of the government's position that many people find to be offensive.
The biggest defect of the Sixties was the experimentation with addictive drugs, bad ones like heroin, cocaine, speed and pills. If people had just stayed with weed, they would have been better off. I think the government made a strategic blunder by making weed illegal. A person that tries marijuana may be tempted to make assumptions about other illegal drugs, that they are OK and do not pose any substantial risks. If marijuana had been legal, because of its harmlessness (relative to most other drugs), then the logic of the government's position would be nigh unassailable. It is the illogical nature of the government's position that many people find to be offensive.
Sunday, April 1, 2012
A Bad Precedent
Malicious scum have been busy posting derogatory and irrelevant theories about a crime victim, Trayvon Martin. The relevant facts concern a single night. There are those that would prefer that the public become confused or grasp at some harebrained reason to rationalize a senseless slaying.
I am appalled that no arrest has been made in the case. It makes me wonder about the state of our Republic. The signal being broadcast from one end of the country to the other is that you can get away with shooting someone dead if you manufacture a claim of self-defense. The result of this and other cases is that more and more people are going to be carrying loaded guns with them in public, and they will shoot anyone that makes them feel the slightest bit uncomfortable.
One may expect more killings to occur as the result of unpunished ones. A precedent has been set, indoctrinating an entire generation with deadly consequences. This case is a public relations disaster, an ill omen, a bad precedent, an evil lesson for young people, and a bad influence on everyone. Republican politicians have mishandled the case due to their negligence, bad faith and gross incompetence.
Who would want to go live in the city of Sanford now? Not anyone that I would want as my neighbor. I would certainly think twice before visiting, let alone moving there, and setting up a business would be completely out of the question. I am not as sure about the implications for the state of Florida, because Florida is a big state with many features. Perhaps Florida will emerge relatively unscathed, although what happened in Sanford could have happened anywhere in that state.
It has become less safe to be a pedestrian in this country. Arrogant scum in cars in the U.S. have always been aggressive and dangerous, but nowadays an added wrinkle is that they might kill a pedestrian with a firearm. It is open season on pedestrians, some of whom will respond by carrying loaded guns in order to protect themselves against maniacal drivers, who also carry loaded guns. I used to like walking places in order to save gas money and to get a bit of exercise, but nowadays it seems like one takes the chance of being shot by some stupid ignoramus just by the simple act of walking home from the store. I suppose in order to be safer, one must use the car even to drive one block. It is not safe to walk any distance anymore, because Bozo might drive up behind you and shoot you dead.
I am appalled that no arrest has been made in the case. It makes me wonder about the state of our Republic. The signal being broadcast from one end of the country to the other is that you can get away with shooting someone dead if you manufacture a claim of self-defense. The result of this and other cases is that more and more people are going to be carrying loaded guns with them in public, and they will shoot anyone that makes them feel the slightest bit uncomfortable.
One may expect more killings to occur as the result of unpunished ones. A precedent has been set, indoctrinating an entire generation with deadly consequences. This case is a public relations disaster, an ill omen, a bad precedent, an evil lesson for young people, and a bad influence on everyone. Republican politicians have mishandled the case due to their negligence, bad faith and gross incompetence.
Who would want to go live in the city of Sanford now? Not anyone that I would want as my neighbor. I would certainly think twice before visiting, let alone moving there, and setting up a business would be completely out of the question. I am not as sure about the implications for the state of Florida, because Florida is a big state with many features. Perhaps Florida will emerge relatively unscathed, although what happened in Sanford could have happened anywhere in that state.
It has become less safe to be a pedestrian in this country. Arrogant scum in cars in the U.S. have always been aggressive and dangerous, but nowadays an added wrinkle is that they might kill a pedestrian with a firearm. It is open season on pedestrians, some of whom will respond by carrying loaded guns in order to protect themselves against maniacal drivers, who also carry loaded guns. I used to like walking places in order to save gas money and to get a bit of exercise, but nowadays it seems like one takes the chance of being shot by some stupid ignoramus just by the simple act of walking home from the store. I suppose in order to be safer, one must use the car even to drive one block. It is not safe to walk any distance anymore, because Bozo might drive up behind you and shoot you dead.
Ron Paul is Right On
I can't find a single thing in Ron Paul's statement on CBS that isn't 100% true. The Republican Party is lucky to have Ron Paul. I wish that Ron Paul represented my state, because then I might think about voting Republican. He's the only one of the remaining candidates for the Republican primary that has anything remotely interesting to say and the only one that has not sold out.
Don't Bomb Iran First
Okay, I'm on the peace train. I hope that Israel does not bomb Iran, first. Only bomb Iran if Iran attacks first. It's an important distinction. I think that Gary Sick makes a cogent case against a preemptive strike. I cannot refute his analysis. It sounds plausible.
The fact of the matter is that the United States is overextended in faraway junkyards like Iraq and Afghanistan, and our economy is in poor shape, and now is not the time to start another big, expensive war with another idiotic country. Better to let Iran go the way of North Korea economically and politically. It is not our responsibility to rescue the Iranian people from their homicidal regime. They would only hate us for helping, anyway, just like the Iraqis and Afghanis. The time has come for the U.S. to focus on improving the U.S., not ungrateful foreign countries. Israel is going to have to learn how to cope psychologically with M.A.D., just like the U.S.S.R. and the U.S.A. did for fifty-odd years.
The fact of the matter is that the United States is overextended in faraway junkyards like Iraq and Afghanistan, and our economy is in poor shape, and now is not the time to start another big, expensive war with another idiotic country. Better to let Iran go the way of North Korea economically and politically. It is not our responsibility to rescue the Iranian people from their homicidal regime. They would only hate us for helping, anyway, just like the Iraqis and Afghanis. The time has come for the U.S. to focus on improving the U.S., not ungrateful foreign countries. Israel is going to have to learn how to cope psychologically with M.A.D., just like the U.S.S.R. and the U.S.A. did for fifty-odd years.
Animal Rights Vs. Human Rights
I'm against sharks, because they compete with humans for high-quality, nutritious food and offer little or nothing to humankind in the way of aesthetic value. Recently there have been a spate of shark attacks on humans in western Australia. I think that justifies permitting fishermen to catch shark for meat. It is not a bad thing to dispose of predators that compete with humans for food, because there are still people in the world going hungry. I take a more benevolent view of herbivores, such as elephants, and predators that are further down the food chain, such as hawks. Humans have increased their numbers to such an extent that there is no real benefit having other predators around that eat the same food, except in the special case of predators with aesthetic value, such as lions and tigers, who may also attract tourists. I am in favor of eco-tourism, because it is an effective way to redistribute wealth, separating the idle rich from their money.
However, I don't really understand men that want to kill big game for sport and not eat the meat. It seems strange to me, indicative of a lack of imagination among other things. Those who kill big game in order to feed their families are understandable. The big game would behave in the same manner, if the tables were turned.
However, I don't really understand men that want to kill big game for sport and not eat the meat. It seems strange to me, indicative of a lack of imagination among other things. Those who kill big game in order to feed their families are understandable. The big game would behave in the same manner, if the tables were turned.
Saturday, March 31, 2012
Replace Money with Cards? Yeah, Right.
Those lazy buns that want to replace cash money with credit cards and stop the government from circulating any money are due some rue from the clue canoe. Credit cards store more than financial amounts. They store information, and their information can be stolen and misused, as happened recently. I think it is completely idiotic to propose doing away with money. Money is free to use and carries no information with it. Money is the perfect payment vehicle, and if we had not already invented it, it would be the perfect successor to that primitive, insecure, expensive and dangerous antique known as the credit card. Credit cards will never replace money, and if money is eliminated, then the world will be less free as a result and less secure.
Keith Olbermann
I've never watched any show with Olbermann, but did see clips of him on the Daily Show with Jon Stewart. He seemed to be the liberal equivalent of Rush Limbaugh, so I never felt any desire to tune in. There is something to be said for being nice, funny, or cute. I can do angry myself. I don't need somebody else to do it for me.
Looks like Olbermann is wasting a whole lot of time and money of liberal and progressive people by taking Current TV to court over his expensive fifty-million dollar contract. In the first place, I don't know who is worth fifty million dollars. Maybe Jon Stewart is. I don't know about Keith Olbermann. I don't even know anyone that watches him. At least Jon Stewart can appeal to the other side through the lubrication of wit.
If I were going to watch anybody on politics besides Jon Stewart, then I'd probably give Rachel Maddow a go. In fact, I may do so. Lately, I've gotten tired of Jon Stewart. His recent shows have seemed a bit boring. I also don't understand why he brings in a constant stream of airhead celebrities to talk about their stupid movies. I suppose he's taking money from the studios, but why should I watch an insipid interview about a movie I never plan to watch?
Looks like Olbermann is wasting a whole lot of time and money of liberal and progressive people by taking Current TV to court over his expensive fifty-million dollar contract. In the first place, I don't know who is worth fifty million dollars. Maybe Jon Stewart is. I don't know about Keith Olbermann. I don't even know anyone that watches him. At least Jon Stewart can appeal to the other side through the lubrication of wit.
If I were going to watch anybody on politics besides Jon Stewart, then I'd probably give Rachel Maddow a go. In fact, I may do so. Lately, I've gotten tired of Jon Stewart. His recent shows have seemed a bit boring. I also don't understand why he brings in a constant stream of airhead celebrities to talk about their stupid movies. I suppose he's taking money from the studios, but why should I watch an insipid interview about a movie I never plan to watch?
Friday, March 30, 2012
Testing
A common problem with small time gamer or forum sites is they have an inadequate test environment, typically little or none. Debugging should only ever be done on a test site, and the changes placed into production only after all possible (or rather, foreseeable) bugs are fixed. Those bugs that can't be foreseen are the only ones that production users, or customers in a business setting, may encounter. Unfortunately, small time web sites tend to make changes on the fly, with the result of inconveniencing some or all of their users. The best changes are slow ones done with care and deliberation and prior notice to users.
I think testing is the single greatest weak point in the software industry, encompassing all the security holes, bugs and failures caused by software that simply was not tested enough. The same could be said of hardware, of course. A web master with a track record of unrolling changes that are perfect for most users and approved by them is a real professional, and he must have a good team of testers.It is very difficult to attempt to anticipate every possible variable or even to identify all the variables at play. Much in computer science has always been assumed. One common and costly assumption was that the first two digits of any four-digit century would always and forever be "19" instead of anything else, like oh, say "20". Another assumption is that electrical power will always be available. What if it is not? Many programs have lost data due to something as simple and common as a power outage. The list goes on. Testing can become quite expensive and time-consuming depending upon the amount of thoroughness desired. The balance between cost and benefit depends upon the application.
I think testing is the single greatest weak point in the software industry, encompassing all the security holes, bugs and failures caused by software that simply was not tested enough. The same could be said of hardware, of course. A web master with a track record of unrolling changes that are perfect for most users and approved by them is a real professional, and he must have a good team of testers.It is very difficult to attempt to anticipate every possible variable or even to identify all the variables at play. Much in computer science has always been assumed. One common and costly assumption was that the first two digits of any four-digit century would always and forever be "19" instead of anything else, like oh, say "20". Another assumption is that electrical power will always be available. What if it is not? Many programs have lost data due to something as simple and common as a power outage. The list goes on. Testing can become quite expensive and time-consuming depending upon the amount of thoroughness desired. The balance between cost and benefit depends upon the application.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)