Thursday, November 15, 2012
A Model Politician
I read an article today about a model politician in Uruguay who defies the stereotype of politicians. He's called the world's poorest President. It would be a good thing if American politicians followed his example.
Ron Paul's Farewell Address
I read or skimmed Ron Paul's Farewell Address to Congress.
Ron Paul is impressive for a Republican, with surprising ideas on many issues. He is representative of what is called Libertarian ideology, which is liberal on social issues, or some social issues, but right-wing on fiscal issues, with a bias for cutting government spending. I trust that he means what he says, that he would cut military spending just as much as domestic spending. But why cut domestic spending at all? Isn't there a benefit to it? I always find the Libertarian argument a bit too simple and find it preposterous for them to claim the middle ground between liberals and conservatives, as though they represent that dish that's neither too hot nor too cold but just right. Ron Paul thinks he occupies some sane middle ground between two opposing, equally crazy, freedom-destroyers, Democrats and Republicans, who chew on Liberty instead of chewing gum. But what he calls welfare spending on grandmother or newborns is not the same as spending billions of dollars on invading a foreign country. I don't think the two parties are equal. There's the Democrats, and what's worse than them are the Republicans. I never saw a good reason for Ron Paul to ally with the Republicans.
He wrote many appealing and true statements, but sometimes drew simple conclusions that were astonishing. I don't know if he always explained the line he drew from true statement "A" to Ron Paul Conclusion "B". I did not always appreciate the reasoning.
There's an odd dimension in his thesis that wants to turn back the clock on a lot of social programs and social progress to make the country resemble some kind of 1800s Industrial Age all over again, workers working six days a week and twelve hours a day, no benefits and no right to strike.
This "Absolute Liberty" permits no check upon the individual, most of all the wealthy individual, because only the wealthy own factories, run financial empires, influence politicians. The wealthy thus access liberties that the rest of us cannot afford. Thus under the ecosystem of absolute "Liberty," a few rich tycoons would accrue all power, because there would be no curb upon their power from the government. The rich would have the liberty to do as they please to you and your kind. That is how things were in the 1800s.
The 1800s was Ron Paul's magical era, a time when the federal government was behaving in general accordance with Ron Paul beliefs. I don't see that Ron Paul would have favored Lincoln's Civil War. I hesitate to predict how he would have stood on slavery. I do believe him, however, when he promises he would let the tokers, like Abraham Lincoln, have their weed. Right on for that, man. I just don't know whether you're also with us on other stuff.
He wrote many appealing and true statements, but sometimes drew simple conclusions that were astonishing. I don't know if he always explained the line he drew from true statement "A" to Ron Paul Conclusion "B". I did not always appreciate the reasoning.
There's an odd dimension in his thesis that wants to turn back the clock on a lot of social programs and social progress to make the country resemble some kind of 1800s Industrial Age all over again, workers working six days a week and twelve hours a day, no benefits and no right to strike.
This "Absolute Liberty" permits no check upon the individual, most of all the wealthy individual, because only the wealthy own factories, run financial empires, influence politicians. The wealthy thus access liberties that the rest of us cannot afford. Thus under the ecosystem of absolute "Liberty," a few rich tycoons would accrue all power, because there would be no curb upon their power from the government. The rich would have the liberty to do as they please to you and your kind. That is how things were in the 1800s.
The 1800s was Ron Paul's magical era, a time when the federal government was behaving in general accordance with Ron Paul beliefs. I don't see that Ron Paul would have favored Lincoln's Civil War. I hesitate to predict how he would have stood on slavery. I do believe him, however, when he promises he would let the tokers, like Abraham Lincoln, have their weed. Right on for that, man. I just don't know whether you're also with us on other stuff.
Alzheimer's Disease
Fascinating article on Alzheimer's Disease in the New York Times. Researchers seem closer to knowing the cause and thereby the solution.
Wednesday, November 14, 2012
Exotic Chess Openings
I play exotic and off-the-wall chess openings that have no business ever winning, yet somehow I pull it off with a combination of luck and inspired idiocy. The Polish and the Grob are cases in point. I also like the Latvian Gambit for Black and the Brooklyn Defense. There are openings that can destroy an opponent's brain by the weight of their stupidity, and the Brooklyn Defense is such a one, where Black resets his position on the second move. I am sure that most opponents assume that Black is a duffer at that point and that their game is already won. The Brooklyn Defense is very deceptive in leading White along this primrose path where all appears easy because he's been given, after all, an additional move and a half. Against the Queen's Gambit, I like Chigorin's Defense, playing it almost exclusively for the novelty value, because I did not discover it until this year.
Tuesday, November 13, 2012
Some Movies are Still Good
Some movies are still good no longer how much time passes. In watching "The Fellowship of the Ring," the Peter Jackson film, I was reminded how important it is for the actors to have a good script. If the actors don't have good lines to say, their appeal is limited. I can't be interested in anyone from the 2009 version of "The Prisoner," and the fault was in the writing, not the actors, who themselves are interesting. The reason I liked Ian McKellen was because of the great role he played as Gandalf in the Ring trilogy.
Often what is uttered in any "The Lord of the Rings" film is straight from the pen of Tolkien or not far from it, so the actors can hardly go wrong. Their lines are often poetic and romantic, all the ideas are fresh, the characters and the mysteries exciting and appealing. Who is Sauron? Who is Gandalf? What force or entity does each serve and why? Who are the Elves and why are they immortal? Who are the Dwarves? The humans? These mysteries are the most powerful elements in the film. So I think Tolkien deserved most of the credit for coming up with the ideas that the film extended and fleshed out.
Linux Mint 13 vs. Windows XP
I can't compare Linux against Windows 7+ because I've never used the modern versions of Windows on my own desktop. On a client's desktop, yes, but that doesn't count in my book. When my brother pulls through with a clean store-bought or Ebay-bought copy of 64-bit Windows 7 Professional (or more likely Home, the economy version), then I will evaluate W7, but I have no plans to subject myself to the anti-desktop Windows 8, which intends to diminish the desktop into a mobile phone. Microsoft can be so clueless sometimes. If one pays a premium for a desktop, one expects more from a desktop than a mobile phone. And no, I do not want a touchscreen, enforced aerobics for my hands. I want a mouse and a keyboard, minimizing the distance that my fingers and hands travel in order to get things done. Because getting things done is what it's all about, isn't it?
I evaluated three Linux distros, two mainstream and one that is pretty far out there in specialist-land and cutting-edge, OpenElec. Linux Mint 13 64-bit Mate and OpenSuse 12.2 64-bit KDE were my primary choices and both installed like champs. OpenSuse 12.2 even had easy support for partitioning my drive via the built-in UEFI support on my motherboard, which meant i could partition with GPT rather than MBR and access all 2.5tb of a massive hard drive. OpenElec refused to install, giving me a cryptic numerical error that had no documentation online. My experience with XBMC, which is the purpose of OpenElec, has been similar--random glitches and refusal to function.
For the Linux novice, which describes most computer users, I recommend Linux Mint or OpenSuse only if they don't have a home network. A home network makes the situation more complicated. It took me many long hours to make Linux shares visible on the existing Windows network. There is a steep learning curve in Linux about everything to do with a network. Text files control all the important settings, and they are not documented, so one must search online and hope to find the better tutorials in order to learn how to configure a Linux network. Expect hours of reading and re-reading, configuring and re-configuring, and hours of frustration and days when nothing whatsoever is accomplished. I think there is an important reason that developers have not made the network easier to configure, and that is job security for network admins. One needs a university degree in network administration just to configure a home network with three desktops and a router. However, accessing the Internet is painless and the OS installs pretty easily.
OpenSuse 12.2 KDE looks magnificent, and I think it is worth evaluating, but I did not keep it around, because I only intend to have one Linux desktop at this stage, and I had invested too much time already with Linux Mint 13. As far as I can tell, Linux is very tribal with some tribes preferring the KDE desktop and others preferring the Gnome desktop, which means little groups of developers spend all their time reinventing each others' wheels.
Boot time with Linux Mint 13 is around thirty seconds, and I have not been able to improve upon this by removing start-up applications or any other tricks. Boot time with Windows XP is about a minute and a half. I don't regret installing LM and plan to keep it, but I will say that configuring everything the way that I like it took a substantial amount of time. But now that I'm done, I'm pleased to have a free, fast, and stable operating system that will enjoy support from the developers until 2017, unlike Windows XP. I don't miss Windows 7 and I'm pleased to have put another feather in my cap, to have learned a new skill which I will describe as "installing, configuring, and using a Linux Gnome desktop."
I evaluated three Linux distros, two mainstream and one that is pretty far out there in specialist-land and cutting-edge, OpenElec. Linux Mint 13 64-bit Mate and OpenSuse 12.2 64-bit KDE were my primary choices and both installed like champs. OpenSuse 12.2 even had easy support for partitioning my drive via the built-in UEFI support on my motherboard, which meant i could partition with GPT rather than MBR and access all 2.5tb of a massive hard drive. OpenElec refused to install, giving me a cryptic numerical error that had no documentation online. My experience with XBMC, which is the purpose of OpenElec, has been similar--random glitches and refusal to function.
For the Linux novice, which describes most computer users, I recommend Linux Mint or OpenSuse only if they don't have a home network. A home network makes the situation more complicated. It took me many long hours to make Linux shares visible on the existing Windows network. There is a steep learning curve in Linux about everything to do with a network. Text files control all the important settings, and they are not documented, so one must search online and hope to find the better tutorials in order to learn how to configure a Linux network. Expect hours of reading and re-reading, configuring and re-configuring, and hours of frustration and days when nothing whatsoever is accomplished. I think there is an important reason that developers have not made the network easier to configure, and that is job security for network admins. One needs a university degree in network administration just to configure a home network with three desktops and a router. However, accessing the Internet is painless and the OS installs pretty easily.
OpenSuse 12.2 KDE looks magnificent, and I think it is worth evaluating, but I did not keep it around, because I only intend to have one Linux desktop at this stage, and I had invested too much time already with Linux Mint 13. As far as I can tell, Linux is very tribal with some tribes preferring the KDE desktop and others preferring the Gnome desktop, which means little groups of developers spend all their time reinventing each others' wheels.
Boot time with Linux Mint 13 is around thirty seconds, and I have not been able to improve upon this by removing start-up applications or any other tricks. Boot time with Windows XP is about a minute and a half. I don't regret installing LM and plan to keep it, but I will say that configuring everything the way that I like it took a substantial amount of time. But now that I'm done, I'm pleased to have a free, fast, and stable operating system that will enjoy support from the developers until 2017, unlike Windows XP. I don't miss Windows 7 and I'm pleased to have put another feather in my cap, to have learned a new skill which I will describe as "installing, configuring, and using a Linux Gnome desktop."
Monday, November 12, 2012
Attack the Block
An awesome movie and instant classic can be found in "Attack the Block," a British teenage gangsta film. My expectations were low, so I was surprised how good it was. The secret is that the main characters are human beings rather than pure boring stupid sociopaths. Instead of being all about crime, the movie is about an alien invasion of a single block in a single city and the gangstas that defend their turf, their block, surviving on pure testosterone-fueled bravado and helpful insight from a white pot-smoking University student who took a biochemistry class or two.
The Prisoner (2009)
On the strength of Ian McKellen portraying a main character in the show, I watched the 2009 remake of "The Prisoner," a six-part series about a man who wakes up in what he believes to be a cleverly designed prison. The plot reminds me of a current subplot in the third season of "The Walking Dead," where two women are refugees in a safe town that they suspect to be a secret tyranny run by a deceptive villain. Or at least, one of the women suspects this.
I hate to say I agree with most of the critics about "The Prisoner." It is a bit incoherent and unsatisfying to this viewer. I suppose I'm old-fashioned but I like to enjoy a coherent plot that I can relate to, not something that resembles a rather paranoid trip. I was particularly disappointed because Ian McKellen is such a fine actor, superb as Gandalf in "The Lord of the Rings" trilogy. Gandalf is like this wise man that has the answer for everything, in my opinion the embodiment of Tolkien's philosophy. Tolkien was that thoughtful Christian with a heretical fantasy theology, defined in "The Simarillion," a book I found impenetrable as a young man but have enjoyed lately.
I hate to say I agree with most of the critics about "The Prisoner." It is a bit incoherent and unsatisfying to this viewer. I suppose I'm old-fashioned but I like to enjoy a coherent plot that I can relate to, not something that resembles a rather paranoid trip. I was particularly disappointed because Ian McKellen is such a fine actor, superb as Gandalf in "The Lord of the Rings" trilogy. Gandalf is like this wise man that has the answer for everything, in my opinion the embodiment of Tolkien's philosophy. Tolkien was that thoughtful Christian with a heretical fantasy theology, defined in "The Simarillion," a book I found impenetrable as a young man but have enjoyed lately.
Dream of my Father
I just realized that the title of my post is similar to the title of Obama's book. Oh well, too bad. I don't think one can copyright a title, and there aren't many possible configurations of a four-word title anyway. Somehow I don't think a lawyer's going to be sending me a nastygram about it. Irrelevancy does have its advantages.
I can't remember a good dream about my father. Last night, I dreamed I was still living in that house, a teenager, and he was busily searching my room from top to bottom, as he often did, searching for contraband, weed being top on the list, followed occasionally by other things, such as paraphenalia, like a homemade bong, or a lighter, or even matches, or ashes, or rolling papers, or tobacco or clove cigarettes, though I stopped smoking them later, nasty habit. He was tearing apart my room, throwing my things on the floor, because he was "suspicious," his favorite word, and when he did look at me on occasion it was with a leer, letting me know he enjoyed this little game, it was a lot of fun for him. I called him what he was, a sadistic bastard, and he pretended to be outraged and grounded me for weeks or months or took away my favorite possession, my computer, on which I spent all my free time programming in BASIC, so that I would be spurred on by boredom to go out with my friends and buy weed from somebody. He loved it, he loved every moment of it, the battle of wills between us, making me suffer and watching the expression on my face. I knew he loved it because he would smile and laugh at me, "hee hee hee hee hee," more like the cackle of the wicked witch from the Wizard of Oz, and congratulate himself on being such a good parent, such an upstanding moral example. He loved prancing around, acting the moralist, the man who never had sex with his wife anymore, who let her do all the housework while he sat around watching television all the time or napping. Always he was at war with either my brother or me or sometimes, for a special treat, both. He always found the thing one of us loved and took it away or made it scarcer. The Grinch he was. And Mr. Grabby Hands besides, although he put a cork on that once I reached the venerable age of twelve.
Weed was expensive in those days and difficult to come by, besides being pretty weak. It was mostly stems and seeds, the shake of the Colombian harvest, and for those of you who do not know, stems and seeds have little or no THC content. Most THC is located in the buds, while some is on the little leaves next to the buds, and a very small amount is in the big fan leaves, but next to nothing is found in stems and seeds, yet they contribute much weight to the product of a dealer selling to inexperienced kids like me, maximizing his profit. I never had a good source, but always somebody taking advantage. In truth this Colombian had the same effect as a weak beer, but my father's rationale was that marijuana was illegal, so it was forbidden, end of story, no negotiation. It didn't matter that the marijuana had little effect other than as an antidepressant. Occasionally he did find alcohol in my room as well, and since I was underage that too was forbidden, but punished much less since it was not very illegal, only a little bit illegal. Later on I concluded that weekend alcoholism was okay in his book so I adopted that practice, drinking on weekends.
I didn't do many other drugs due to my dread of their effects, because I wasn't ignorant about drugs at all. Coke was available, but I thought it was stupid putting something up the nose and never felt tempted. I still don't understand the appeal. My brother rolled up a dollar bill and set up some lines for me once, twice, three times, different occasions. I only tried it once, because of his incessant urging, a half-hearted try, just to shut him up, and I don't think I got more than a line snorted, and it was weak stuff to begin with. I didn't feel much of anything. Probably mostly baking soda with a little bit of ground-up caffeine pills and cocaine, was my belief then and now. That's a perennial problem with coke, it isn't easy to get the genuine product. Glad I skipped that train, but it certainly wasn't my father's doing. Coke would have been a lot easier to hide in my room.
If he didn't find any weed, that meant I had successfully concealed my stash somewhere. He never was satisfied I didn't have any, that was impossible in his ideology, because all resistance and all obstinence and disobedience was the result of marijuana, nothing else. He was absolutely convinced that marijuana was the sole representative of Satan Incarnate. I think it was his fanaticism on this point that persuaded me to keep using marijuana, because I began joining him in his game, finding the amusement in it. I decided he wanted to find marijuana, he was just putting on that he didn't, and that was probably true. He always had a big sense of joy every time he found something and was frustrated and dejected when he didn't. So this was a big game between my father and me that we played for years until I was eighteen or so.
I can't remember a good dream about my father. Last night, I dreamed I was still living in that house, a teenager, and he was busily searching my room from top to bottom, as he often did, searching for contraband, weed being top on the list, followed occasionally by other things, such as paraphenalia, like a homemade bong, or a lighter, or even matches, or ashes, or rolling papers, or tobacco or clove cigarettes, though I stopped smoking them later, nasty habit. He was tearing apart my room, throwing my things on the floor, because he was "suspicious," his favorite word, and when he did look at me on occasion it was with a leer, letting me know he enjoyed this little game, it was a lot of fun for him. I called him what he was, a sadistic bastard, and he pretended to be outraged and grounded me for weeks or months or took away my favorite possession, my computer, on which I spent all my free time programming in BASIC, so that I would be spurred on by boredom to go out with my friends and buy weed from somebody. He loved it, he loved every moment of it, the battle of wills between us, making me suffer and watching the expression on my face. I knew he loved it because he would smile and laugh at me, "hee hee hee hee hee," more like the cackle of the wicked witch from the Wizard of Oz, and congratulate himself on being such a good parent, such an upstanding moral example. He loved prancing around, acting the moralist, the man who never had sex with his wife anymore, who let her do all the housework while he sat around watching television all the time or napping. Always he was at war with either my brother or me or sometimes, for a special treat, both. He always found the thing one of us loved and took it away or made it scarcer. The Grinch he was. And Mr. Grabby Hands besides, although he put a cork on that once I reached the venerable age of twelve.
Weed was expensive in those days and difficult to come by, besides being pretty weak. It was mostly stems and seeds, the shake of the Colombian harvest, and for those of you who do not know, stems and seeds have little or no THC content. Most THC is located in the buds, while some is on the little leaves next to the buds, and a very small amount is in the big fan leaves, but next to nothing is found in stems and seeds, yet they contribute much weight to the product of a dealer selling to inexperienced kids like me, maximizing his profit. I never had a good source, but always somebody taking advantage. In truth this Colombian had the same effect as a weak beer, but my father's rationale was that marijuana was illegal, so it was forbidden, end of story, no negotiation. It didn't matter that the marijuana had little effect other than as an antidepressant. Occasionally he did find alcohol in my room as well, and since I was underage that too was forbidden, but punished much less since it was not very illegal, only a little bit illegal. Later on I concluded that weekend alcoholism was okay in his book so I adopted that practice, drinking on weekends.
I didn't do many other drugs due to my dread of their effects, because I wasn't ignorant about drugs at all. Coke was available, but I thought it was stupid putting something up the nose and never felt tempted. I still don't understand the appeal. My brother rolled up a dollar bill and set up some lines for me once, twice, three times, different occasions. I only tried it once, because of his incessant urging, a half-hearted try, just to shut him up, and I don't think I got more than a line snorted, and it was weak stuff to begin with. I didn't feel much of anything. Probably mostly baking soda with a little bit of ground-up caffeine pills and cocaine, was my belief then and now. That's a perennial problem with coke, it isn't easy to get the genuine product. Glad I skipped that train, but it certainly wasn't my father's doing. Coke would have been a lot easier to hide in my room.
If he didn't find any weed, that meant I had successfully concealed my stash somewhere. He never was satisfied I didn't have any, that was impossible in his ideology, because all resistance and all obstinence and disobedience was the result of marijuana, nothing else. He was absolutely convinced that marijuana was the sole representative of Satan Incarnate. I think it was his fanaticism on this point that persuaded me to keep using marijuana, because I began joining him in his game, finding the amusement in it. I decided he wanted to find marijuana, he was just putting on that he didn't, and that was probably true. He always had a big sense of joy every time he found something and was frustrated and dejected when he didn't. So this was a big game between my father and me that we played for years until I was eighteen or so.
Sunday, November 11, 2012
XBMC's Black Screen
XBMC is a Zen video player for Linux. Instead of video, XBMC plays no-video for the no-mind and the no-body. When I click on XBMC, I get a black screen, and the keyboard and mouse no longer work, because after all, there is nothing more important than meditation, and one does not require a mouse or keyboard in order to meditate. Nor does one require video. Or even a computer for that matter. So XBMC is Zen in its purest form. I can only assume that the developers have achieved enlightenment, entered Nirvana and left this world of suffering behind. I have not yet achieved enlightenment, so I decided to uninstall XBMC and revert to slow but functional VLC.
TIME Magazine
I got the latest TIME and was impressed by its unusual heft. The heft wasn't all additional advertising, as I had suspected, but actual news articles concerning something other than the latest Hollywood movie. The last issue devoted 27 pages to the latest movie by Spielberg. I wonder how much Spielberg paid TIME for that amount of advertising. I also wonder why I should be paying for a magazine that is composed of advertising and not news.
Would this issue of TIME mark the brand new, never-before-seen inclusion of investigative journalism and tell me something that I did not already know? Would this issue be reality-based, or a bunch of rumors and half-truths? Unfortunately, TIME squandered all its pulp to analyze the election and the supposed technical, financial, demographic and logistical factors behind Romney's defeat, based upon its various sources in the rumor mill. I scanned those articles but found them beside the point. I don't expect that many people in the media will get the point. At any rate none of it was interesting to me, and I went back to Doris Lessing and her confessions of being a Communist divorcee in Southern Rhodesia. Yes, even that was more interesting.
Who won was a function of the candidates themselves, the ideas they espoused and how those ideas resonated with the electorate. I don't expect Republicans to gather any clues from the election. Republicans never take rides on the clue canoe. The only likely change is they will become more extreme and crazy than before to reflect their base. The Republican party is the extreme right wing, while the Democratic party is the moderate right wing. There is no left wing political party in the United States. Anyone who looked at Obama's policies for five minutes without bias would conclude that Obama is a conservative. In large part he continues the policies of his predecessors Bush and Clinton, which is why his relations with the former Presidents remain so good. Romney, at least the latest version, was not a conservative, but a radical Social Darwinist who promised extreme change that would result in unnecessary suffering and additional warfare and debt. There were enough voters in 2012 that perceived enough of this to make the crucial difference--more than enough voters, as a matter of fact, because the margin was not as close as pundits predicted. Romney lost not just the Electoral College, but the popular vote as well, and he lost in all those battleground states that the Republicans were boasting they would carry, and in doing so he squandered hundreds of millions of dollars from his unethical donors. Perhaps his supporters on the ground were uninspired by his background at Bain Capital, his flip-flopping on issues, and his fumbling of words and facts. But the central problem was Romney's ideology, and I am pleased to predict that Republicans will never admit that in a million years, because introspection is unknown to Republicans. No, they will continue to commit the same old errors, which bodes well for the opposing party of the future, be it Democrats, Greens or Libertarians.
Would this issue of TIME mark the brand new, never-before-seen inclusion of investigative journalism and tell me something that I did not already know? Would this issue be reality-based, or a bunch of rumors and half-truths? Unfortunately, TIME squandered all its pulp to analyze the election and the supposed technical, financial, demographic and logistical factors behind Romney's defeat, based upon its various sources in the rumor mill. I scanned those articles but found them beside the point. I don't expect that many people in the media will get the point. At any rate none of it was interesting to me, and I went back to Doris Lessing and her confessions of being a Communist divorcee in Southern Rhodesia. Yes, even that was more interesting.
Who won was a function of the candidates themselves, the ideas they espoused and how those ideas resonated with the electorate. I don't expect Republicans to gather any clues from the election. Republicans never take rides on the clue canoe. The only likely change is they will become more extreme and crazy than before to reflect their base. The Republican party is the extreme right wing, while the Democratic party is the moderate right wing. There is no left wing political party in the United States. Anyone who looked at Obama's policies for five minutes without bias would conclude that Obama is a conservative. In large part he continues the policies of his predecessors Bush and Clinton, which is why his relations with the former Presidents remain so good. Romney, at least the latest version, was not a conservative, but a radical Social Darwinist who promised extreme change that would result in unnecessary suffering and additional warfare and debt. There were enough voters in 2012 that perceived enough of this to make the crucial difference--more than enough voters, as a matter of fact, because the margin was not as close as pundits predicted. Romney lost not just the Electoral College, but the popular vote as well, and he lost in all those battleground states that the Republicans were boasting they would carry, and in doing so he squandered hundreds of millions of dollars from his unethical donors. Perhaps his supporters on the ground were uninspired by his background at Bain Capital, his flip-flopping on issues, and his fumbling of words and facts. But the central problem was Romney's ideology, and I am pleased to predict that Republicans will never admit that in a million years, because introspection is unknown to Republicans. No, they will continue to commit the same old errors, which bodes well for the opposing party of the future, be it Democrats, Greens or Libertarians.
Saturday, November 10, 2012
Doris Lessing
I spent the entire day reading Doris Lessing's autobiography and came to dislike her. Maybe she would feel likewise reading me, I don't doubt.
So she was a Communist, fine. Get over it. Plenty of people were back then. It's not a big deal. All of this hand-wringing and agonizing and "how could I have thought such and such" was unappealing. Like we haven't heard about repentant Communists before. I found her too circumspect. She wants to place the spotlight upon every iota of her own being and that of others in order to indulge her guilt fantasy. I want to tell her to stop it, for your reader's sake stop it and just let things be for once, do whatever it takes to stop all of this dreadful, unending slicing and dicing of every thought and feeling, just let things be. After a couple hundred pages I felt a headache coming on and had to put the book down.
I much prefer Anne Rice's early novels about vampires. Anne Rice could be riveting back in the day, before her light faded.
I will not take Doris Lessing with me to work again, that's for sure. She can only be absorbed in small doses. Her books make passable bathroom reading material, two to five minutes at a time.
So she was a Communist, fine. Get over it. Plenty of people were back then. It's not a big deal. All of this hand-wringing and agonizing and "how could I have thought such and such" was unappealing. Like we haven't heard about repentant Communists before. I found her too circumspect. She wants to place the spotlight upon every iota of her own being and that of others in order to indulge her guilt fantasy. I want to tell her to stop it, for your reader's sake stop it and just let things be for once, do whatever it takes to stop all of this dreadful, unending slicing and dicing of every thought and feeling, just let things be. After a couple hundred pages I felt a headache coming on and had to put the book down.
I much prefer Anne Rice's early novels about vampires. Anne Rice could be riveting back in the day, before her light faded.
I will not take Doris Lessing with me to work again, that's for sure. She can only be absorbed in small doses. Her books make passable bathroom reading material, two to five minutes at a time.
Thursday, November 8, 2012
Mental Illness
In the end, or rather before the end, my father's mental illness killed his relationship with me. After he reached a certain age, I found it impossible to communicate with him. I visited him several months ago. He does not see me. He looks through me, as though I am just an abstract idea. He talks at me rather than with me. His face is a mask, he conceals what he really feels, what he really thinks, because his mind has many unpleasant thoughts and feelings, a beehive of little demons that must be kept in, lest they sting and sting. Once when I spoke with him for five hours into the wee hours of the morning he started telling me that a stranger he passed in the mall was spying upon him using an electronic listening device. When I went to bed that night I wondered whether he would come into my room and stab me, because maybe I was spying on him too, maybe I was in league with them, maybe I was actually the stranger, using a clever disguise to appear as his son.
His mind today thrives upon anger. He is always searching for something to get angry about. He is never willing to admit the slightest fault. He demands that everyone pretend as though he is always right and always perfect. I think it is a coping mechanism that helps him deal with his depression. So he will die alone having written me and possibly my brother out of his will because he is angry at us. He is always angry at either my brother or me. I cannot remember a time when he was not. He sought to use his will as a tool to manipulate us, except I refused to be manipulated. If he writes me out then so be it. I feel like he gives a lie to all the things he used to say and the things he used to swear. More often I recall the bad things he did to us, the lies he said to us. Less do I recall any good.
I remember when I was a boy, my father instilled in me the fantasy that we were special, that our family was special, that he was special, and that I was special, but I came to find out later that none of that was true, rather we were ordinary and powerless and poor and humble in abilities and resources, and as for our family, well, it was dysfunctional due in large part to his mental illness and the poor decisions that he made, and now our family is thrown to the four winds, for Mother at last acquired the strength and wisdom to leave him, and today he is not even willing to speak to his own children out of pettiness and spite, a pattern he has followed off and on for decades, for his whole life. No, we are not special in any way, and I am glad the line ends with me, I am glad I was cautious, because there is nothing really worth going to the trouble and expense of replicating, as I look around the world and observe so much genius and creativity in others. My father was proud without a basis for his overweening pride, and as a youngster I absorbed this pride and claimed it for my own, but now I feel different, I question the basis for this pride, and feel humble. I feel empty also and think that much was random and meaningless. It is a strange thing to recall being close to one's father long ago, and knowing now that he wouldn't even answer the phone if I were to call, because of his sickness of the mind. For years I thought my life's achievement would be an autobiography, or at any rate a derivative book of some kind, but now I realize that no one would read it in the first place, because autobiographies are for the famous, and there's nothing remarkable about us, we were just another family living in a certain period in a certain area. I prefer allowing my memory to decay and fade, for dust to pile upon the dust. To disturb old ghosts again is not my wish, nor do I want to preserve in words those who don't deserve it. So he will fade into darkness and I will follow in due course and that will be that. When I look back I see so many lies, so much nonsense, none of it was important at all.
His mind today thrives upon anger. He is always searching for something to get angry about. He is never willing to admit the slightest fault. He demands that everyone pretend as though he is always right and always perfect. I think it is a coping mechanism that helps him deal with his depression. So he will die alone having written me and possibly my brother out of his will because he is angry at us. He is always angry at either my brother or me. I cannot remember a time when he was not. He sought to use his will as a tool to manipulate us, except I refused to be manipulated. If he writes me out then so be it. I feel like he gives a lie to all the things he used to say and the things he used to swear. More often I recall the bad things he did to us, the lies he said to us. Less do I recall any good.
I remember when I was a boy, my father instilled in me the fantasy that we were special, that our family was special, that he was special, and that I was special, but I came to find out later that none of that was true, rather we were ordinary and powerless and poor and humble in abilities and resources, and as for our family, well, it was dysfunctional due in large part to his mental illness and the poor decisions that he made, and now our family is thrown to the four winds, for Mother at last acquired the strength and wisdom to leave him, and today he is not even willing to speak to his own children out of pettiness and spite, a pattern he has followed off and on for decades, for his whole life. No, we are not special in any way, and I am glad the line ends with me, I am glad I was cautious, because there is nothing really worth going to the trouble and expense of replicating, as I look around the world and observe so much genius and creativity in others. My father was proud without a basis for his overweening pride, and as a youngster I absorbed this pride and claimed it for my own, but now I feel different, I question the basis for this pride, and feel humble. I feel empty also and think that much was random and meaningless. It is a strange thing to recall being close to one's father long ago, and knowing now that he wouldn't even answer the phone if I were to call, because of his sickness of the mind. For years I thought my life's achievement would be an autobiography, or at any rate a derivative book of some kind, but now I realize that no one would read it in the first place, because autobiographies are for the famous, and there's nothing remarkable about us, we were just another family living in a certain period in a certain area. I prefer allowing my memory to decay and fade, for dust to pile upon the dust. To disturb old ghosts again is not my wish, nor do I want to preserve in words those who don't deserve it. So he will fade into darkness and I will follow in due course and that will be that. When I look back I see so many lies, so much nonsense, none of it was important at all.
Right Wingers and Their Guns
There was a bald guy out at work that resembled this detritus and looked me in the eye one morning and said that all Democrats should be shot.
The more right-wing a person is, the more evil, the more likely they are to inflict suffering and harm upon living things.
The more right-wing a person is, the more evil, the more likely they are to inflict suffering and harm upon living things.
Wednesday, November 7, 2012
Tuesday, November 6, 2012
Romney Loses, America Wins
I am relieved that President Obama won reelection. This was an important juncture in the history of our world. The ballot initiatives and other state and local elections are also encouraging, giving me cause for optimism about the goodness and understanding of our people. It is pleasant when honesty, decency and fairness prevail over the forces of evil.
Should anyone be surprised that the former slave states voted for Romney? With some exceptions they will remain Republican until successive generations loosen the iron neck-collar of the right wing, which beats the drum for division, anger, and war. Had Bush #3 won, the United States would have gotten entangled in yet another overseas conflict, because that is the only thing the right wing knows how to do, make war upon their numerous enemies. They have waged war upon gays, upon women, upon racial minorities, upon foreigners, upon our environment, upon workers, and they are accustomed to making war for the sheer love of war--they do not require a proper reason for war. Romney had no other skills, for he never built a business, but rather destroyed businesses in order to make easy money, and he never worked a single day in his entire life, but was a vulture circling for easy scraps, and to distract attention away from his shortcomings, away from his lack of empathy and his callous disregard of living things, he would have succumbed to the same temptation that Bush #2 found irresistible, warfare, the crack cocaine of the right wing, their fix, their jolt in the arm, their kick.
Should anyone be surprised that the former slave states voted for Romney? With some exceptions they will remain Republican until successive generations loosen the iron neck-collar of the right wing, which beats the drum for division, anger, and war. Had Bush #3 won, the United States would have gotten entangled in yet another overseas conflict, because that is the only thing the right wing knows how to do, make war upon their numerous enemies. They have waged war upon gays, upon women, upon racial minorities, upon foreigners, upon our environment, upon workers, and they are accustomed to making war for the sheer love of war--they do not require a proper reason for war. Romney had no other skills, for he never built a business, but rather destroyed businesses in order to make easy money, and he never worked a single day in his entire life, but was a vulture circling for easy scraps, and to distract attention away from his shortcomings, away from his lack of empathy and his callous disregard of living things, he would have succumbed to the same temptation that Bush #2 found irresistible, warfare, the crack cocaine of the right wing, their fix, their jolt in the arm, their kick.
China's Hackers
Those of us in tech already know China's on the move in cyberspace. The Russians and the Chinese are targeting not only military, but web sites and computers everywhere without regard to their role or function. Motives vary, and old-fashioned state espionage probably isn't at the top of the list, but the Internet remains a Wild Wild West out there.
Monday, November 5, 2012
Downton Abbey's Deja Vu
I had a real sense of deja vu watching last night's Downton Abbey (Season 3, episode 8), where Thomas was leaving Downton Abbey after ten years of reliable service without a reference for being gay. Except in my case, there weren't warmhearted senior employees looking out for me, more like a gang of O'Brians looking after their own ends. Downton Abbey is just a wonderful fantasy about what life could be like, and I'm always dazzled by the kindness of the characters on the show, the way they are so compassionate and enlightened in the most unexpected ways. Perhaps it is unrealistic, but we need a good fantasy, and I love the set, the acting, the script and the costumes.
Over the Moon with Linux Mint
Ground control had a lot of work to do pulling all-nighters and unpaid weekends, but now I'm over the Moon with Linux Mint Maya. Couldn't be happier.
As Bob Marley said,
As Bob Marley said,
Don't worry
bout a ting, 'cause
every little ting...
gonna be all right.
Linux Firewall Won't Play Fair
Perhaps one day, my Linux will get a firewall. For now, I can't make heads or tails of the Linux firewall. If I enable it and deny incoming, then no matter what exceptions I make for 192.168.0.0 to 192.168.255.255, that box is OFF the network. I might as well cut the ethernet cable with a pair of scissors.
Three hours down the drain tonight trying to get the firewall working. I watched video, read three tutorials and twenty forum messages--nothing availed.
Will I recommend Linux to anybody? Yes, people I don't like.
The regrettable truth, and I don't like saying it, is that folks would be better off paying $1000 for a single copy of Windows XP 32-bit. What's that? Windows XP only costs $100 on Ebay? What a bargain. Buy it now.
Update: I finally got the firewall working right(er) at 05:21, after picking up a subtle clue on a stray tutorial somewhere out there in Internet land. Turns out the other tutorials, forum messages, Youtube video, et al were all wrong about how to whitelist IP ranges. The From...To thing doesn't work for me. I tried it six ways to Sunday. Seems broken. What does work is adding one single exception to allow Incoming. I found that whitelisting 127.0.1.0/24 in the "From" field--and leaving the To field blank--does the trick. That single line was ALL that was needed to permit local network shares to continue functioning. Period.
Now I'm going to work on whitelisting the outgoing connections. Nah, scratch that. Save it for tomorrow. 05:43, you know, it's time for me to get some shut-eye.
I felt a little guilty about all the bellyaching I've been doing in my blog about Linux Networking until I read some asides from experienced Linux gurus that basically said they just about yanked their router out of the wall and threw it out the window. I think frustration is fairly widespread. Of course, the truth is I did have trouble configuring Windows networking, too. Not as much trouble by about five to one, but I did have some difficulty. The thing with Windows is its all graphical and options are quite limited (protecting the user from himself) and the documentation available on the Internet is comprehensive, even without Microsoft, and I've never used Microsoft technical support in all my days.
Once you get Linux working, there's a sense of "Oh, wow, this is neat!" and a feeling of remorse ensues. Now why did I ever, ever doubt my darling, free, lovely Linux? how could I be so fickle? so...disloyal, when Linux has done everything for me? Yeah, I do feel pangs of conscience, which is weird, I know.
When it works, it's the greatest thing since sliced bread. When it doesn't, if you can't figure it out after many long hours of trying, then you want to throw it out the window. That's the cardinal truth about computers, doesn't matter if it's Linux or anything else.
I guess I'm just relieved that Linux is logical after all, that I finally proved that it is a system based upon rules that I can actually understand if I just deduce what those rules are in the first place. Unfortunately, documentation is lacking, to put it mildly, which is why I spent 99% of my time researching on the Internet and only 1% actually doing something. There are secrets hidden away that you can never discover in a million years unless you read the secret straight from the hand of an experienced guru.
Update2: I've since revised my firewall to rule to allow 192.168.1.1/24 instead because that seems to be more or less what everybody else is doing, and with my ignorance, they're probably right and I'm probably wrong. Not really sure but it's working with that so I'll keep it. Had to give up on trying to configure firewall rules for outgoing. Seems like a bear, and I don't know whether it is strictly necessary.
In my opinion, Linux security has to be taken with a grain of salt, because 90% of all users are going to disable the settings just like me because they are frankly incomprehensible gobbledygook. So Windows has the security advantage I think of the two operating systems. I'm sure for the Linux guru the security can become nigh invulnerable, but for the rest of us, we are going to do everything we can to disable security, because otherwise nothing works right on a network.
Three hours down the drain tonight trying to get the firewall working. I watched video, read three tutorials and twenty forum messages--nothing availed.
Will I recommend Linux to anybody? Yes, people I don't like.
The regrettable truth, and I don't like saying it, is that folks would be better off paying $1000 for a single copy of Windows XP 32-bit. What's that? Windows XP only costs $100 on Ebay? What a bargain. Buy it now.
Update: I finally got the firewall working right(er) at 05:21, after picking up a subtle clue on a stray tutorial somewhere out there in Internet land. Turns out the other tutorials, forum messages, Youtube video, et al were all wrong about how to whitelist IP ranges. The From...To thing doesn't work for me. I tried it six ways to Sunday. Seems broken. What does work is adding one single exception to allow Incoming. I found that whitelisting 127.0.1.0/24 in the "From" field--and leaving the To field blank--does the trick. That single line was ALL that was needed to permit local network shares to continue functioning. Period.
I felt a little guilty about all the bellyaching I've been doing in my blog about Linux Networking until I read some asides from experienced Linux gurus that basically said they just about yanked their router out of the wall and threw it out the window. I think frustration is fairly widespread. Of course, the truth is I did have trouble configuring Windows networking, too. Not as much trouble by about five to one, but I did have some difficulty. The thing with Windows is its all graphical and options are quite limited (protecting the user from himself) and the documentation available on the Internet is comprehensive, even without Microsoft, and I've never used Microsoft technical support in all my days.
Once you get Linux working, there's a sense of "Oh, wow, this is neat!" and a feeling of remorse ensues. Now why did I ever, ever doubt my darling, free, lovely Linux? how could I be so fickle? so...disloyal, when Linux has done everything for me? Yeah, I do feel pangs of conscience, which is weird, I know.
When it works, it's the greatest thing since sliced bread. When it doesn't, if you can't figure it out after many long hours of trying, then you want to throw it out the window. That's the cardinal truth about computers, doesn't matter if it's Linux or anything else.
I guess I'm just relieved that Linux is logical after all, that I finally proved that it is a system based upon rules that I can actually understand if I just deduce what those rules are in the first place. Unfortunately, documentation is lacking, to put it mildly, which is why I spent 99% of my time researching on the Internet and only 1% actually doing something. There are secrets hidden away that you can never discover in a million years unless you read the secret straight from the hand of an experienced guru.
Update2: I've since revised my firewall to rule to allow 192.168.1.1/24 instead because that seems to be more or less what everybody else is doing, and with my ignorance, they're probably right and I'm probably wrong. Not really sure but it's working with that so I'll keep it. Had to give up on trying to configure firewall rules for outgoing. Seems like a bear, and I don't know whether it is strictly necessary.
In my opinion, Linux security has to be taken with a grain of salt, because 90% of all users are going to disable the settings just like me because they are frankly incomprehensible gobbledygook. So Windows has the security advantage I think of the two operating systems. I'm sure for the Linux guru the security can become nigh invulnerable, but for the rest of us, we are going to do everything we can to disable security, because otherwise nothing works right on a network.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)