Sen. Webb (D) has secured the release of an American imprisoned by the Burmese military dictatorship.
A certain amount of dialogue with totalitarian governments can be beneficial, even at the risk of appearing to condone them. In the absence of communication, there are few other viable options available.
The American prisoner, a man who went to Burma uninvited and visited Suu Kyi, implicating her in a so-called crime, was guilty of naivety and foolishness. What he did was a very American thing to do. Since the World Wars, Americans have had a crusader mentality which sometimes exceeds the bounds of reason. Probably he was in love with Suu Kyi, because she is an attractive and eloquent woman, besides being the leader of the democratic opposition. Unfortunately, the Burmese government has used this debacle as an excuse to extend Suu Kyi's confinement, which is a terrible outcome. The desire to help foreigners must be counter-balanced by an appreciation for the consequences.
We hear little about Burma, also called Myanmar, in the news, other than reports of repression and brutality directed toward the poor and toward Buddhist monks. China supports the military government in Burma, which is unethical. It is true that in the past, the U.S. has supported military dictatorships, such as the one that existed in Iran prior to the revolution. However, just because the U.S. has erred in the past does not mean it is all right for everyone to do the same. Follow what is good, not what is bad. Our support of the Shah in Iran proved to be counter-productive in the long run. China may one day discover that their support for Burma's military dictatorship is counter-productive, as well, because people have a long memory.
Saturday, August 15, 2009
The Gay Christian Network
I found an interesting online article in the Washington Post's web site about the Gay Christian Network. Some of the comments are as good as the article itself. I am pleased to read articles like this. They were rare in my day. I grew up thinking that I was the "the only gay in the village," like Daffyd in the comedy show, "Little Britain."
When Jesus spoke of helping others and avoiding harming others, that was the message, alpha and omega. Dilution occurred when men placed their personal prejudices into religious theory and practice. This is why there is conflict today in certain religious communities over the issue of homosexuality. Sexual orientation is not a moral issue and never was. Men want to put themselves above others and think that they are better than others. This has always been the case, whether the matter is religion or something else, like ideology.
Religion does not have a monopoly on intolerance. Ideology can prove just as homophobic if not more so. In Communist Russia, homosexuality was considered a capitalist decadence and was grounds for imprisonment. Hitler murdered his close associate, Roehm, officially on the grounds of homosexuality. The Nazis placed homosexuals in concentration camps along with other minorities. Ayn Rand, the atheist behind the Objectivist movement, thought that gays should be treated psychologically just for being gay. So I do not believe that religion is the enemy of homosexuality. The cause of homophobia goes deeper within the human psyche than any belief system.
A common assumption is that those who are different are therefore bad, sick, or wrong. But this is not true. They are different, yes. Not bad. A simple concept, but even intelligent minds have difficulty with this simple concept. Intelligence is insufficient when uninformed by empathy for others. The same mistake that leads to racism also leads to homophobia.
Religion need not be the enemy of homosexuality. Neither must homosexuality be the enemy of religion. Gays can be as religious as any other group, have been in the past, and are today. This is an important point to consider for those religious communities that take issue with homosexuality. By being intolerant, a religious community bleeds numbers and influence and discredits their cause. It is counter-productive and begins a pointless battle that cannot be won.
If you believe in God, then that is all right. If you say, do not harm others, then that is something people will support. You may even make the world a better place! But if you say, I don't approve of your sexuality, then you have created an artificial conflict that must persist into perpetuity, because gays will continue to be born, even within the families of the faithful.
When Jesus spoke of helping others and avoiding harming others, that was the message, alpha and omega. Dilution occurred when men placed their personal prejudices into religious theory and practice. This is why there is conflict today in certain religious communities over the issue of homosexuality. Sexual orientation is not a moral issue and never was. Men want to put themselves above others and think that they are better than others. This has always been the case, whether the matter is religion or something else, like ideology.
Religion does not have a monopoly on intolerance. Ideology can prove just as homophobic if not more so. In Communist Russia, homosexuality was considered a capitalist decadence and was grounds for imprisonment. Hitler murdered his close associate, Roehm, officially on the grounds of homosexuality. The Nazis placed homosexuals in concentration camps along with other minorities. Ayn Rand, the atheist behind the Objectivist movement, thought that gays should be treated psychologically just for being gay. So I do not believe that religion is the enemy of homosexuality. The cause of homophobia goes deeper within the human psyche than any belief system.
A common assumption is that those who are different are therefore bad, sick, or wrong. But this is not true. They are different, yes. Not bad. A simple concept, but even intelligent minds have difficulty with this simple concept. Intelligence is insufficient when uninformed by empathy for others. The same mistake that leads to racism also leads to homophobia.
Religion need not be the enemy of homosexuality. Neither must homosexuality be the enemy of religion. Gays can be as religious as any other group, have been in the past, and are today. This is an important point to consider for those religious communities that take issue with homosexuality. By being intolerant, a religious community bleeds numbers and influence and discredits their cause. It is counter-productive and begins a pointless battle that cannot be won.
If you believe in God, then that is all right. If you say, do not harm others, then that is something people will support. You may even make the world a better place! But if you say, I don't approve of your sexuality, then you have created an artificial conflict that must persist into perpetuity, because gays will continue to be born, even within the families of the faithful.
Avoid Stating the Obvious
A good rule of thumb for writers is to avoid stating the obvious. This is sometimes easier said than done, because what is obvious to one person may not be quite so obvious to another.
Yesterday, I wrote an article extolling the virtues of Wikipedia. I thought it was pretty good, explaining the advantages that Wikipedia has over Google and other search engines. Satisfied, I saved the piece, and then went to watch the July 14th, 2009 episode of "The Daily Show with Jon Stewart."
In his monologue, Jon dropped a reference to Wikipedia. That's when it hit me like a cast-iron safe dropped from a fifth-floor window. Wikipedia is old news. Might as well gush over how great motorized transportation is. Duh! Everybody already knows. So, I ruthlessly deleted the piece, which had taken about an hour to write. Oh well. Good writing practice, if nothing else.
Here's a little something that people might not know about Wikipedia, though. If you're interested in exploring new career options, you can input a job title in Wikipedia, and it usually provides a detailed description along with external links that provide further information.
Yesterday, I wrote an article extolling the virtues of Wikipedia. I thought it was pretty good, explaining the advantages that Wikipedia has over Google and other search engines. Satisfied, I saved the piece, and then went to watch the July 14th, 2009 episode of "The Daily Show with Jon Stewart."
In his monologue, Jon dropped a reference to Wikipedia. That's when it hit me like a cast-iron safe dropped from a fifth-floor window. Wikipedia is old news. Might as well gush over how great motorized transportation is. Duh! Everybody already knows. So, I ruthlessly deleted the piece, which had taken about an hour to write. Oh well. Good writing practice, if nothing else.
Here's a little something that people might not know about Wikipedia, though. If you're interested in exploring new career options, you can input a job title in Wikipedia, and it usually provides a detailed description along with external links that provide further information.
Friday, August 14, 2009
An Overview of Dungeon Crawl Utilities
The utilities I have written for use with Dungeon Crawl Stone Soup are simple batch files, fully compatible with Windows XP at minimum.
The charm of a batch file is that the end user can easily understand all of the things that the batch file does. No compiler is required, which makes modification a simple matter (all you need is Notepad). The technological barrier for the end user is low. If you understand the basics of a command line interpreter such as MS-DOS--and many computer users do, especially if they are into crawling--then you can use and modify these utilities without too much difficulty.
A section of my desktop with shortcuts to the following three batch files.
install-new-crawl.bat - does all the work of clearing out the old version, unpacking a new version, installing it, and cleaning up all the junk afterward. The biggest drawback is that it requires WinRar in order to function. If you do not have WinRar installed, you could substitute an alternative program to unpack the Zip archive. This batch is designed to handle the zips found on the Beta (test) version site. I only use the Beta version, these days, because I like exploring new features as soon as they are developed. Note: I have added the capability of appending mods to the option files.
regen.bat - a method of preserving characters from dreaded sudden death. This is what I use to run Crawl.
Cleanslate.bat - eliminates saved games that are no longer interesting. Otherwise, such characters will persist on the welcome screen, especially if you are using regen.bat to backup your saved games. Be aware that this batch eliminates all saved games, even in the backup directories. It is essentially just three delete statements, not much more. The simplest of all my batch files.
(A reward for sharing up-to-date versions of these utilities is that I had a backup waiting for me in the cloud when my hard drive crashed last month.)
The charm of a batch file is that the end user can easily understand all of the things that the batch file does. No compiler is required, which makes modification a simple matter (all you need is Notepad). The technological barrier for the end user is low. If you understand the basics of a command line interpreter such as MS-DOS--and many computer users do, especially if they are into crawling--then you can use and modify these utilities without too much difficulty.
install-new-crawl.bat - does all the work of clearing out the old version, unpacking a new version, installing it, and cleaning up all the junk afterward. The biggest drawback is that it requires WinRar in order to function. If you do not have WinRar installed, you could substitute an alternative program to unpack the Zip archive. This batch is designed to handle the zips found on the Beta (test) version site. I only use the Beta version, these days, because I like exploring new features as soon as they are developed. Note: I have added the capability of appending mods to the option files.
regen.bat - a method of preserving characters from dreaded sudden death. This is what I use to run Crawl.
Cleanslate.bat - eliminates saved games that are no longer interesting. Otherwise, such characters will persist on the welcome screen, especially if you are using regen.bat to backup your saved games. Be aware that this batch eliminates all saved games, even in the backup directories. It is essentially just three delete statements, not much more. The simplest of all my batch files.
(A reward for sharing up-to-date versions of these utilities is that I had a backup waiting for me in the cloud when my hard drive crashed last month.)
Thursday, August 13, 2009
Modifying H. Sapiens
Scientists are learning more about the human genome. Here is yet another article on the insights they are gaining into our genetic traits. This is exciting stuff. Oh, to be alive a hundred years from now. I wonder what the world will be like then. Surely much different. Even the human race will be different. Everyone alive today will be regarded as primitive ancestors, much in the same way that we view our distant relatives on the evolutionary tree.
There are many traits in H. Sapiens that beg for alteration. The list is probably endless. The only thing that bothers me is that the technology could be used for evil as well as good, much like any technology, and it is likely that it will be used for evil, given our history. Governments will seek to modify the human genome in order to manufacture passive, conformist workers that never question authority. I see a world with castes, much like India, but entrenched by hard-coded racial attributes.
There are many traits in H. Sapiens that beg for alteration. The list is probably endless. The only thing that bothers me is that the technology could be used for evil as well as good, much like any technology, and it is likely that it will be used for evil, given our history. Governments will seek to modify the human genome in order to manufacture passive, conformist workers that never question authority. I see a world with castes, much like India, but entrenched by hard-coded racial attributes.
Wednesday, August 12, 2009
Iranian Hardliners Claim Psychic Ability
I am duly impressed with the ability of hardliners in Iran to read minds. How else to explain that they conclude no rapes occurred among detainees, no less than one day after the issue was raised?
If an issue like this had arisen in the U.S., we would be dissecting every detail for months, and everyone would feel free to comment on the case. How many Iranians can say the same?
Iran's Supreme Leader has a mission in life. He wants to rehabilitate the Shah's image by appearing worse than the Shah. There is no other explanation for his behavior. All the rhetoric of the Islamic revolution is belied by the present-day oppression in Iran, which has been held back in a state of perpetual retardation since the Revolution.
Khomeini was a nut. I knew the moment I saw his image on television back in the 1970s. If Islam was all people needed in order to be ethical, Iran would be the freest nation on earth. Government requires a more sophisticated design than, "Just rely on Allah for everything." Allah is a bit soft-spoken, turns out. The mullahs pretend to hear his every word, while in reality they act however they please, ascribing celestial approval for the bloodiest deeds.
There is a great irony to be found in the fact that the conservative, fundamentalist variant of Islam, as implemented in Iranian law, is obsessed with the human form and seeks to keep women's bodies completely covered up. In Iran, morality police roam the streets and beat any couple engaged in a harmless kiss. Don't even ask what happens to homosexuals, when they are detected. Meanwhile, the righteous police rape, torture, and murder prisoners. How's that for morality? How does sexual conduct relate to ethics? There is no relation. No more than diet or preferred choice of beverage. Sex is an appetite of the body, nothing more.
If an issue like this had arisen in the U.S., we would be dissecting every detail for months, and everyone would feel free to comment on the case. How many Iranians can say the same?
Iran's Supreme Leader has a mission in life. He wants to rehabilitate the Shah's image by appearing worse than the Shah. There is no other explanation for his behavior. All the rhetoric of the Islamic revolution is belied by the present-day oppression in Iran, which has been held back in a state of perpetual retardation since the Revolution.
Khomeini was a nut. I knew the moment I saw his image on television back in the 1970s. If Islam was all people needed in order to be ethical, Iran would be the freest nation on earth. Government requires a more sophisticated design than, "Just rely on Allah for everything." Allah is a bit soft-spoken, turns out. The mullahs pretend to hear his every word, while in reality they act however they please, ascribing celestial approval for the bloodiest deeds.
There is a great irony to be found in the fact that the conservative, fundamentalist variant of Islam, as implemented in Iranian law, is obsessed with the human form and seeks to keep women's bodies completely covered up. In Iran, morality police roam the streets and beat any couple engaged in a harmless kiss. Don't even ask what happens to homosexuals, when they are detected. Meanwhile, the righteous police rape, torture, and murder prisoners. How's that for morality? How does sexual conduct relate to ethics? There is no relation. No more than diet or preferred choice of beverage. Sex is an appetite of the body, nothing more.
Sunday, August 9, 2009
Governor Rod has a Web Site
I swear the scandal in Illinois is a gift that keeps on giving. A vampire that rises from the grave, yanking the stake from its own heart. Governor B just won't stay quiet. Rather than be appalled, I'm amused. It's comical. He has a web site now. And he's talking. It might be interesting, I don't know, for the political science majors out there, especially grad students, to read his site daily for little insights that a former governor might have into the inner workings of government.
Saturday, August 8, 2009
On Being Analytical
If you possess an analytical personality, you can see the flaws in everything. Analytical minds make the best critics. Actually doing something, yourself--well, that's another toolbox. Select an enthusiastic personality if you want to get something done.
Enthusiasm is the antithesis of analysis. Enthused individuals leap into the fray with both feet. They don't necessarily land on their feet, but they do make that jump. Their motto is, "Ours is not to question why. Ours is but to do or die!"
Which is better, enthusiasm or analysis? Real-world circumstances determine which approach succeeds. Many people will disagree with me, because of the way that the world is, but for my part, I think analytical skills rule. I think that enthusiasm is a bad idea. If you do not stop and question, then how do you know you aren't serving improper ends? Many human beings serve the cause of evil without even being aware of it. They believe that they are doing good, or at least that their work carries with it no ethical baggage. But every action has implications and ramifications. The world is complex. Nothing is as simple as it seems.
However, a tendency to analyze can be taken to such extremes that nothing brings pleasure, and all is fraught with inadequacy. This is a common shortcoming among highly analytical minds. The exception, or flaw, is more interesting to an analytical mind because it imparts more information. Thus the analytical mind can get into the habit of magnifying the flaws in everything. Indeed, many of us work our entire adult lives in careers where it is our job to do precisely this. Our employer demands that we fix the problems, but doesn't care whether we study things that are already working fine.
This brings me back to a favorite proverb that has been traced to the priests of Apollo, who counseled moderation in all things, presumably including moderation itself, along with the tendency to analyze. There are moments when it is essential to shut down the critical faculties and go with the flow. Social gatherings are one such occasion. Analytical minds must learn the skill of STFU, or Stopping The Frequency of Utterances (that may be one possible definition) that dwell upon negative or critical aspects. Adopt an enthusiastic/spastic attitude, if only for the duration of the party.
Enthusiasm is the antithesis of analysis. Enthused individuals leap into the fray with both feet. They don't necessarily land on their feet, but they do make that jump. Their motto is, "Ours is not to question why. Ours is but to do or die!"
Which is better, enthusiasm or analysis? Real-world circumstances determine which approach succeeds. Many people will disagree with me, because of the way that the world is, but for my part, I think analytical skills rule. I think that enthusiasm is a bad idea. If you do not stop and question, then how do you know you aren't serving improper ends? Many human beings serve the cause of evil without even being aware of it. They believe that they are doing good, or at least that their work carries with it no ethical baggage. But every action has implications and ramifications. The world is complex. Nothing is as simple as it seems.
However, a tendency to analyze can be taken to such extremes that nothing brings pleasure, and all is fraught with inadequacy. This is a common shortcoming among highly analytical minds. The exception, or flaw, is more interesting to an analytical mind because it imparts more information. Thus the analytical mind can get into the habit of magnifying the flaws in everything. Indeed, many of us work our entire adult lives in careers where it is our job to do precisely this. Our employer demands that we fix the problems, but doesn't care whether we study things that are already working fine.
This brings me back to a favorite proverb that has been traced to the priests of Apollo, who counseled moderation in all things, presumably including moderation itself, along with the tendency to analyze. There are moments when it is essential to shut down the critical faculties and go with the flow. Social gatherings are one such occasion. Analytical minds must learn the skill of STFU, or Stopping The Frequency of Utterances (that may be one possible definition) that dwell upon negative or critical aspects. Adopt an enthusiastic/spastic attitude, if only for the duration of the party.
Friday, August 7, 2009
Psychologists Reject Gay-to-Straight Therapy
This decision by the APA should put the insulting notions behind so-called "reparative therapy" to rest.
While I never engaged in a structured or organized form of "reparative therapy," I was taught that homosexuality was sick, wrong, et cetera, and this caused a great deal of dysfunction and confusion. I kept trying to be something I was not and to play roles that were not well-suited to me.
In high school, bullying was common. Gays received the lion's share of bullying. Nothing provokes a bully more than a boy with the slightest trace of otherness, which is associated with weakness.
The start of a school day inspired terror. The end of a school day, relief if nothing had happened, or else thoughts of suicide if something had. You would expect teachers to put a stop to bullying. I know I did. If a bully was beating the hell out of a smaller kid, then that was considered a good thing, because it was considered the way things ought to be. Reparative therapy, don't you know.
I remember blood on the gymnasium floor. I'll always remember the blood. In PhysEd class, which was a required course. The teacher was a redneck and turned a blind eye to bullies. When he noticed the blood, he compelled the victim to clean it up with a mop and a bucket in front of everyone else. I'll always remember that. The victim was a retarded effeminate black student who spoke with a lisp. Who was his assailant? Another black student. It was an attack based upon perceived sexual orientation.
While I never engaged in a structured or organized form of "reparative therapy," I was taught that homosexuality was sick, wrong, et cetera, and this caused a great deal of dysfunction and confusion. I kept trying to be something I was not and to play roles that were not well-suited to me.
In high school, bullying was common. Gays received the lion's share of bullying. Nothing provokes a bully more than a boy with the slightest trace of otherness, which is associated with weakness.
The start of a school day inspired terror. The end of a school day, relief if nothing had happened, or else thoughts of suicide if something had. You would expect teachers to put a stop to bullying. I know I did. If a bully was beating the hell out of a smaller kid, then that was considered a good thing, because it was considered the way things ought to be. Reparative therapy, don't you know.
I remember blood on the gymnasium floor. I'll always remember the blood. In PhysEd class, which was a required course. The teacher was a redneck and turned a blind eye to bullies. When he noticed the blood, he compelled the victim to clean it up with a mop and a bucket in front of everyone else. I'll always remember that. The victim was a retarded effeminate black student who spoke with a lisp. Who was his assailant? Another black student. It was an attack based upon perceived sexual orientation.
Wednesday, August 5, 2009
The Internet and Personal Names
Today I saw a sign in someone's yard in opposition to a local politician, displaying the man's name affixed to a .dot com. Above the url was one word: Recall.
The only reason his opponents were able to grab that url was that he was an older man, not a big wheeler and dealer, and serving in a small community. He neglected to consider the ramifications of failing to reserve an url on the Internet. Now his legal name is being employed on the Internet to malign him. This, I feel, is unfair, because it places a new burden upon those running for public office, or anyone, indeed, who achieves a certain level of notoriety.
If you want to oppose a person, you should be allowed to reserve the word "sucks" appended to their full legal name; but you should not be allowed to sit on the actual legal name. I base this reasoning on the expectation of users searching for a specific web site. If you enter "Joe Smith" in the Google search engine, you are probably a fan. If you enter "Joe Smith sucks," you're probably not. "Sucks" began as a vulgar connotation, but nowadays is used with less prejudice. You can find numerous critical web sites with "sucks" appended to the url. In the event that there are multiple individuals with the same name, the url should be allotted on a first-come, first-serve basis--but it should always go to the person who has the name registered upon their birth certificate.
In lieu of a law protecting individuals, I believe that political players should voluntarily abide by this straight-forward ethical position. Dirty tricks may succeed from time to time, but they also give insight into the nature of the perpetrator, as in the case of Cheney.
The only reason his opponents were able to grab that url was that he was an older man, not a big wheeler and dealer, and serving in a small community. He neglected to consider the ramifications of failing to reserve an url on the Internet. Now his legal name is being employed on the Internet to malign him. This, I feel, is unfair, because it places a new burden upon those running for public office, or anyone, indeed, who achieves a certain level of notoriety.
If you want to oppose a person, you should be allowed to reserve the word "sucks" appended to their full legal name; but you should not be allowed to sit on the actual legal name. I base this reasoning on the expectation of users searching for a specific web site. If you enter "Joe Smith" in the Google search engine, you are probably a fan. If you enter "Joe Smith sucks," you're probably not. "Sucks" began as a vulgar connotation, but nowadays is used with less prejudice. You can find numerous critical web sites with "sucks" appended to the url. In the event that there are multiple individuals with the same name, the url should be allotted on a first-come, first-serve basis--but it should always go to the person who has the name registered upon their birth certificate.
In lieu of a law protecting individuals, I believe that political players should voluntarily abide by this straight-forward ethical position. Dirty tricks may succeed from time to time, but they also give insight into the nature of the perpetrator, as in the case of Cheney.
Monday, August 3, 2009
Coming Soon to a World Near You: Eugenics
In the future, it is likely that governments around the world will ban natural childbirth and institute mandatory sterilization of all males. Test tube babies will be the rule. Couples will select the genetic traits desired in their children. In some countries, the government may choose for them. There are arguments that can be made in favor of efficiency, improvement, and reduction of risk.
The main problem, as I see it, is that we may get things wrong. We may assume that certain traits are beneficial, when they have hidden drawbacks. Every engineer knows that by taking measures to eliminate a problem, sometimes new and unforeseen problems are created.
Let us say for instance that we wish to eliminate vulnerability to AIDS/HIV by tweaking the human immune system. We do so, and experience a few generations of improved resistance to AIDS. This seems all well and good. However, many years down the road, we may find people are developing cancer at an alarming rate. Will it be possible to correct existing human beings, once they've already been born? One cannot rule out the possibility, but it would seem difficult, at best.
Despite such potential problems, I am in favor of engineering a new breed, because by doing so, we can eliminate many pervasive and persistent problems from the world. For instance, no criminals need be born. That, in my opinion, should be the first modification. Every human being should be born with a conscience. Today, some are born without a conscience. Some individuals in Iran, for instance, think it is acceptable to work for a fascist government and brutalize civilians as part of their "job". Either their conscience is malfunctioning or nonexistent. One of the two. We need to create a stronger human conscience to the point where humans feel a great revulsion against harming other humans. This would reduce the chances of stupid wars breaking out, and clowns like Ahmadeinjad could never get started in the first place.
Notice how I've turned the argument against eugenics on its face. In the past, people associated eugenics with the Nazis and racism. However, let us hope that in the future, eugenics will be a tool employed to eliminate nazism, fascism and racism. Of course, things could go either way, couldn't they? If China masters the science behind eugenics before we do, then all bets are off. I would not put it past them. Expect a human race of conformist automatons who live only to serve the State. Art and literature would be devastated.
The United States has been neglecting science in favor of business scams and pointless wars. America needs to change into a society where college students prefer to study science to the exclusion of all other fields, including business. Business is irrelevant. It contributes nothing beyond mindless consumerism. Science is the only way forward. A nation that does not lead in science will be overtaken in more ways than one by a nation that does.
Any future program of eugenics should be voluntary, rather than compulsory, and there should be greater emphasis placed upon morality, such that human beings do not become viruses that prey upon their own kind nor serve a State that is itself a virus, like Iran. Only states like Iran and China would make eugenics compulsory. Iran would manufacture Islamobots, no doubt. We in the West have placed our confidence in diversity, and I think that is the best strategy overall to contend with a diverse planet.
The main problem, as I see it, is that we may get things wrong. We may assume that certain traits are beneficial, when they have hidden drawbacks. Every engineer knows that by taking measures to eliminate a problem, sometimes new and unforeseen problems are created.
Let us say for instance that we wish to eliminate vulnerability to AIDS/HIV by tweaking the human immune system. We do so, and experience a few generations of improved resistance to AIDS. This seems all well and good. However, many years down the road, we may find people are developing cancer at an alarming rate. Will it be possible to correct existing human beings, once they've already been born? One cannot rule out the possibility, but it would seem difficult, at best.
Despite such potential problems, I am in favor of engineering a new breed, because by doing so, we can eliminate many pervasive and persistent problems from the world. For instance, no criminals need be born. That, in my opinion, should be the first modification. Every human being should be born with a conscience. Today, some are born without a conscience. Some individuals in Iran, for instance, think it is acceptable to work for a fascist government and brutalize civilians as part of their "job". Either their conscience is malfunctioning or nonexistent. One of the two. We need to create a stronger human conscience to the point where humans feel a great revulsion against harming other humans. This would reduce the chances of stupid wars breaking out, and clowns like Ahmadeinjad could never get started in the first place.
Notice how I've turned the argument against eugenics on its face. In the past, people associated eugenics with the Nazis and racism. However, let us hope that in the future, eugenics will be a tool employed to eliminate nazism, fascism and racism. Of course, things could go either way, couldn't they? If China masters the science behind eugenics before we do, then all bets are off. I would not put it past them. Expect a human race of conformist automatons who live only to serve the State. Art and literature would be devastated.
The United States has been neglecting science in favor of business scams and pointless wars. America needs to change into a society where college students prefer to study science to the exclusion of all other fields, including business. Business is irrelevant. It contributes nothing beyond mindless consumerism. Science is the only way forward. A nation that does not lead in science will be overtaken in more ways than one by a nation that does.
Any future program of eugenics should be voluntary, rather than compulsory, and there should be greater emphasis placed upon morality, such that human beings do not become viruses that prey upon their own kind nor serve a State that is itself a virus, like Iran. Only states like Iran and China would make eugenics compulsory. Iran would manufacture Islamobots, no doubt. We in the West have placed our confidence in diversity, and I think that is the best strategy overall to contend with a diverse planet.
Sunday, August 2, 2009
Mix and Match Traits
In the History Channel's "Evolve" series, scientists discuss the possibility that in the future, parents will select the traits they want to see in their test-tube babies. Natural childbirth will be regarded as unconscionable due to the risk of birth defects. This will be a brave new world, indeed. What I've mentioned is only the beginning. Once the human genome is fully cracked and 0wn3d, there will be many among us who opt to abandon the human form altogether in favor of a more perfect outward and inward form. Every one has a different version of what constitutes perfection, however, so expect a world strewn with monsters, gods, and odd things never before imagined. This is a scary technology, and we are probably not ready for it. Nevertheless, it's coming, probably a hundred years down the road.
Friday, July 31, 2009
Deep Dwarves Reconsidered
My first gander at deep dwarves in Dungeon Crawl Stone Soup waxed skeptical, but I've changed my mind:
Warning--the following represents a spoiler. If you wish to learn about the new race, Deep Dwarves, on your own, then stop reading now.
Here's the bottom line. Deep Dwarves are good at axes, armour, dodging, and shields, and make fine Berserkers. Why do you want your Deep Dwarf to be a Berserker? Well, Trog can heal a Deep Dwarf, which is essential, as Deep Dwarves lack all natural capacity for healing. I relied upon Trog's Regeneration ability until the final levels, when I resorted to my wands of healing.
This is one of the few cases where I had little recourse to my cheating mechanism. There was no need to cheat after acquiring such a fantastic set of armour and other enchantments:
My Dwarf began with a dangerously low Intelligence (2), so I opted to wear a Ring of Sustain Abilities to prevent the Intelligence rating from dropping to zero, which is fatal. This ring allowed me to wear a powerful shield that deducts five points from Intelligence (if not wearing the ring). Later, I acquired a fantastic set of boots that increased Intelligence, although this wasn't of any use to a Berserker.
Because my style of play centers around melee, the crossbow proved superfluous. My dwarf obtained only level three in Crossbows. A Deep Dwarf need not master missile weapons. This is also true of other races, such as Demonspawn. Missile weapons apply in the main to Centaurs, Halfings and like creatures, but my Berserkers tend to prefer hiding behind walls and waiting for monsters to engage in close quarters, where a Berserker is deadly. Besides, in the case of Deep Dwarves, they excel at Evocations. Better to rely upon magical items and wands for ranged attack.
Even with only minimal resistance to Fire (+, not +++), this particular Deep Dwarf slew three Orbs of Fire in succession while they surrounded him. Grabbing the Orb of Zot was a cakewalk. I've never said that before. Take a look at the primary stats of this character just before his last move in the game:
What makes the Deep Dwarf race so special is that they are resistant to damage. I am not talking about armour aptitude. I am referring to a unique racial ability to instantly recover from small amounts of damage. If your armour class is high enough, then few monsters will be able to touch you in the end. The counterbalance to this is that Deep Dwarves cannot heal naturally.
If you can rely upon Trog for healing until you enter Zot, you are home free. Abstain from recharging your wand of healing until you descend into Zot. Bear in mind that Trog will abandon you in the end, because your need for healing will exceed his munificence. Also, avoid the Crypt, the Tomb, and the Hells, because Trog will abandon you in those regions. Trog only awards Piety for slaying the living, not the dead or demons. Therefore, you should avoid places where those foul creatures abound, if you want to conserve your wand of healing.
The ability of Deep Dwarves to recharge wands is fantastic and should not be underestimated. Most recharges should be reserved for your wand of healing and should only be used in the last few levels. This method of healing wounds proved invaluable in Zot, where I could recover all hit points within a few turns as opposed to resting and inviting new attacks from wandering monsters.
I appreciated the ability to Sense Surroundings. This permits a Deep Dwarf to discover every region of a map and is just as good as having a limitless supply of Scrolls of Mapping.
My verdict on Deep Dwarves as spellcasters is simple. No, and here's why: you burn a magic point each time you recharge a wand. A spellcaster would not exploit that ability very much, were he wise.
I am not familiar with the Goddess Evylion and cannot comment on the Healer class, as I've never played it, but I suspect Deep Dwarves were tailor-made for Evylion. She heals, from what I understand, which solves an essential problem for the Deep Dwarf, although Trog also supplies healing. I prefer Trog, but that's just me.
Another aspect I like about Deep Dwarves is that they can benefit from dwarven armament, as my character did, gaining racial bonuses for using them. A Deep Dwarf equipped with a vorpalized dwarven broad axe seems powerful indeed, even more powerful than Minotaurs I've known.
Compared to their kin, Mountain Dwarves, Deep Dwarves sacrifice aptitude for combat (armour, et cetera), but gain resistance to low levels of damage, the ability to Sense Surroundings, the ability to recharge wands, and at latter levels, resistance to negative energy (or at least my dwarf did). Also, they are superb at Evocations, which helps when using wands and other items. My suggestion is to abstain from missile weapons, rely upon Gods (Trog, Evylion, possibly others) for healing, and avoid spellcasting. Also, try using decks of cards to heal, because some decks have an Elixir card.
At this stage of development, I believe that Deep Dwarf Berserkers are more powerful than any other race/class combination.
Warning--the following represents a spoiler. If you wish to learn about the new race, Deep Dwarves, on your own, then stop reading now.
Here's the bottom line. Deep Dwarves are good at axes, armour, dodging, and shields, and make fine Berserkers. Why do you want your Deep Dwarf to be a Berserker? Well, Trog can heal a Deep Dwarf, which is essential, as Deep Dwarves lack all natural capacity for healing. I relied upon Trog's Regeneration ability until the final levels, when I resorted to my wands of healing.
This is one of the few cases where I had little recourse to my cheating mechanism. There was no need to cheat after acquiring such a fantastic set of armour and other enchantments:
My Dwarf began with a dangerously low Intelligence (2), so I opted to wear a Ring of Sustain Abilities to prevent the Intelligence rating from dropping to zero, which is fatal. This ring allowed me to wear a powerful shield that deducts five points from Intelligence (if not wearing the ring). Later, I acquired a fantastic set of boots that increased Intelligence, although this wasn't of any use to a Berserker.
Because my style of play centers around melee, the crossbow proved superfluous. My dwarf obtained only level three in Crossbows. A Deep Dwarf need not master missile weapons. This is also true of other races, such as Demonspawn. Missile weapons apply in the main to Centaurs, Halfings and like creatures, but my Berserkers tend to prefer hiding behind walls and waiting for monsters to engage in close quarters, where a Berserker is deadly. Besides, in the case of Deep Dwarves, they excel at Evocations. Better to rely upon magical items and wands for ranged attack.
Even with only minimal resistance to Fire (+, not +++), this particular Deep Dwarf slew three Orbs of Fire in succession while they surrounded him. Grabbing the Orb of Zot was a cakewalk. I've never said that before. Take a look at the primary stats of this character just before his last move in the game:
What makes the Deep Dwarf race so special is that they are resistant to damage. I am not talking about armour aptitude. I am referring to a unique racial ability to instantly recover from small amounts of damage. If your armour class is high enough, then few monsters will be able to touch you in the end. The counterbalance to this is that Deep Dwarves cannot heal naturally.
If you can rely upon Trog for healing until you enter Zot, you are home free. Abstain from recharging your wand of healing until you descend into Zot. Bear in mind that Trog will abandon you in the end, because your need for healing will exceed his munificence. Also, avoid the Crypt, the Tomb, and the Hells, because Trog will abandon you in those regions. Trog only awards Piety for slaying the living, not the dead or demons. Therefore, you should avoid places where those foul creatures abound, if you want to conserve your wand of healing.
The ability of Deep Dwarves to recharge wands is fantastic and should not be underestimated. Most recharges should be reserved for your wand of healing and should only be used in the last few levels. This method of healing wounds proved invaluable in Zot, where I could recover all hit points within a few turns as opposed to resting and inviting new attacks from wandering monsters.
I appreciated the ability to Sense Surroundings. This permits a Deep Dwarf to discover every region of a map and is just as good as having a limitless supply of Scrolls of Mapping.
My verdict on Deep Dwarves as spellcasters is simple. No, and here's why: you burn a magic point each time you recharge a wand. A spellcaster would not exploit that ability very much, were he wise.
I am not familiar with the Goddess Evylion and cannot comment on the Healer class, as I've never played it, but I suspect Deep Dwarves were tailor-made for Evylion. She heals, from what I understand, which solves an essential problem for the Deep Dwarf, although Trog also supplies healing. I prefer Trog, but that's just me.
Another aspect I like about Deep Dwarves is that they can benefit from dwarven armament, as my character did, gaining racial bonuses for using them. A Deep Dwarf equipped with a vorpalized dwarven broad axe seems powerful indeed, even more powerful than Minotaurs I've known.
Compared to their kin, Mountain Dwarves, Deep Dwarves sacrifice aptitude for combat (armour, et cetera), but gain resistance to low levels of damage, the ability to Sense Surroundings, the ability to recharge wands, and at latter levels, resistance to negative energy (or at least my dwarf did). Also, they are superb at Evocations, which helps when using wands and other items. My suggestion is to abstain from missile weapons, rely upon Gods (Trog, Evylion, possibly others) for healing, and avoid spellcasting. Also, try using decks of cards to heal, because some decks have an Elixir card.
At this stage of development, I believe that Deep Dwarf Berserkers are more powerful than any other race/class combination.
Thursday, July 30, 2009
William Butler Yeats
Poets from yesteryear dabbled with racist notions here and there, such as William Butler Yeats, who wrote in The King's Threshold (p.389) a passage that has troubled scholars:
No writer in their right mind would drop such a bombshell today. I try to bear in mind the times that Yeats lived in and take his words in that context, the same sort of allowance that I make for homophobic writers of yesteryear such as Edward Gibbon. Gibbon always talked trash about sodomites, in accord with the views of his age, but there remains ample cause for speculation over his own sexuality, which never seemed to manifest in any open manner.
What Yeats had in mind was an ideal future generation, such as we envision now through manipulation of the human genome. Whether such a future race would be white is open to debate, and I think Yeats would concur with this, because we now know that white skin is more vulnerable to skin cancer and only possesses an advantage in climates where the human body must remain covered for protection from cold. An ideal skin pigmentation depends upon the climate, and climate cannot be directly controlled, yet, although it can be predicted. So a variety of skin pigmentation would be the optimum configuration of any human population. No one color should be the rule--otherwise, we are putting all our proverbial eggs in one basket.
The future ideal race may lack a physical form altogether and be entirely virtual. This would ensure immortality--as long as the host server remains operational (a mighty big if, to anyone who knows anything about computers). As though to underscore this frailty, my computer experienced a power outage just as I typed that last sentence.
And now I must digress to the issue of computer malfunction. If your computer clicks off due to power failure, and even after the power resumes, your computer refuses to come on again, here's a trick. Unplug the power cable in the back. Wait five minutes. Plug it back in. Chances are, everything will come back, no problem. In fact, Firefox 3.5 reloaded every one of my windows that I feared had been lost, which is another reason I love Firefox 3.5. Also, Blogger had stored an online copy of this very missive, which is why I love Blogger. What I really don't love is typing in the same text I had already typed before. Had that scenario presented itself, you would not be reading this now. I'm doing this for fun, remember.
One more trick I have up my sleeve is to open up the power supply and replace the fuse, because I've seen fuses blow in the past, and it costs less than one dollar to replace one. Just for those that wish to know. I ignore those silly little stickers that warn of "dangerous voltages -- no user-serviceable parts inside". Look, if the power supply is unplugged, it is not going to kill you. I was seconds away from opening up the power supply and inspecting the fuse when I decided to try 'er again and see what happened.
The stars had come so near me
that I caught
Their singing. It was praise of that great
race
That would be haughty, mirthful, and white-
bodied,
With a high head, and open hand, and how,
Laughing, it would take the mastery of the
world.
No writer in their right mind would drop such a bombshell today. I try to bear in mind the times that Yeats lived in and take his words in that context, the same sort of allowance that I make for homophobic writers of yesteryear such as Edward Gibbon. Gibbon always talked trash about sodomites, in accord with the views of his age, but there remains ample cause for speculation over his own sexuality, which never seemed to manifest in any open manner.
What Yeats had in mind was an ideal future generation, such as we envision now through manipulation of the human genome. Whether such a future race would be white is open to debate, and I think Yeats would concur with this, because we now know that white skin is more vulnerable to skin cancer and only possesses an advantage in climates where the human body must remain covered for protection from cold. An ideal skin pigmentation depends upon the climate, and climate cannot be directly controlled, yet, although it can be predicted. So a variety of skin pigmentation would be the optimum configuration of any human population. No one color should be the rule--otherwise, we are putting all our proverbial eggs in one basket.
The future ideal race may lack a physical form altogether and be entirely virtual. This would ensure immortality--as long as the host server remains operational (a mighty big if, to anyone who knows anything about computers). As though to underscore this frailty, my computer experienced a power outage just as I typed that last sentence.
And now I must digress to the issue of computer malfunction. If your computer clicks off due to power failure, and even after the power resumes, your computer refuses to come on again, here's a trick. Unplug the power cable in the back. Wait five minutes. Plug it back in. Chances are, everything will come back, no problem. In fact, Firefox 3.5 reloaded every one of my windows that I feared had been lost, which is another reason I love Firefox 3.5. Also, Blogger had stored an online copy of this very missive, which is why I love Blogger. What I really don't love is typing in the same text I had already typed before. Had that scenario presented itself, you would not be reading this now. I'm doing this for fun, remember.
One more trick I have up my sleeve is to open up the power supply and replace the fuse, because I've seen fuses blow in the past, and it costs less than one dollar to replace one. Just for those that wish to know. I ignore those silly little stickers that warn of "dangerous voltages -- no user-serviceable parts inside". Look, if the power supply is unplugged, it is not going to kill you. I was seconds away from opening up the power supply and inspecting the fuse when I decided to try 'er again and see what happened.
Let Obama Smoke
Society has long been composed of a pack of prudes. Instead of being prudish over sex, nowadays people are prudes over consumption. Once he obtained the White House, Obama pledged to stop smoking, which I viewed with the greatest skepticism. We voted for the Obama we knew during his candidacy, not an unhappy and nervous junkie craving nicotine for the next four years. Obama has not looked chipper during the last couple of press conferences. He should turn that frown upside down and smoke like a chimney if he so prefers. We, the American people, care less about his long-term chances of cancer, than for his behavior, appearance and performance during his term.
It is prudishness that caused Obama to quit. That and nothing else. People have already forgotten that Winston Churchill and FDR smoked, whereas Adolf Hitler did not. Nicotine apparently helps some people perform. We may not know why. But why knock it? Just prudishness, I fear. Our ancestors shuddered at the sight of an ankle. Nowadays people don't mind the ankles, but have adapted prudishness to contend with smoking, drinking, getting high, overeating, or eating the "wrong" foods. While the nerds and geeks of the world (like me) can quote statistics showing the proper behaviors associated with optimum health, we can't predict the consequences of depriving people of their preferred condiment.
Answer me this: what mistakes has Obama already committed due to his unsatisfied nicotine cravings? What future mistakes will he make? These are no idle questions. Have you ever seen someone quit cigarettes after a lifetime habit? It's not a pretty sight. While not smoking is an excellent policy, in general, it's sheer foolishness for a man to stop cold turkey, just before taking over the most important job in the entire world.
And as for the nervous nannies who oppose Regina Benjamin, Obama's pick for Surgeon General, because of her weight, I have news for you. People are fat because of genes. Period. Some remain thin their whole lives, while others remain fat their whole lives. Scolding fat people only increases human misery. A few pounds here or there are not going to kill you, whatever the disingenuous prudes say otherwise. Those who choose to restrict their diet may live longer, but at what cost? In time, they must die anyway, just like everyone else. If they endure for a few extra years of decrepitude, who cares? Is life just a race to see who lives the longest? If you live to 90 instead of 80, does that mean you win? The victory party will be held by the worms, and they prefer you to be fat.
It is prudishness that caused Obama to quit. That and nothing else. People have already forgotten that Winston Churchill and FDR smoked, whereas Adolf Hitler did not. Nicotine apparently helps some people perform. We may not know why. But why knock it? Just prudishness, I fear. Our ancestors shuddered at the sight of an ankle. Nowadays people don't mind the ankles, but have adapted prudishness to contend with smoking, drinking, getting high, overeating, or eating the "wrong" foods. While the nerds and geeks of the world (like me) can quote statistics showing the proper behaviors associated with optimum health, we can't predict the consequences of depriving people of their preferred condiment.
Answer me this: what mistakes has Obama already committed due to his unsatisfied nicotine cravings? What future mistakes will he make? These are no idle questions. Have you ever seen someone quit cigarettes after a lifetime habit? It's not a pretty sight. While not smoking is an excellent policy, in general, it's sheer foolishness for a man to stop cold turkey, just before taking over the most important job in the entire world.
And as for the nervous nannies who oppose Regina Benjamin, Obama's pick for Surgeon General, because of her weight, I have news for you. People are fat because of genes. Period. Some remain thin their whole lives, while others remain fat their whole lives. Scolding fat people only increases human misery. A few pounds here or there are not going to kill you, whatever the disingenuous prudes say otherwise. Those who choose to restrict their diet may live longer, but at what cost? In time, they must die anyway, just like everyone else. If they endure for a few extra years of decrepitude, who cares? Is life just a race to see who lives the longest? If you live to 90 instead of 80, does that mean you win? The victory party will be held by the worms, and they prefer you to be fat.
Why did the Ancients Prefer Alcohol?
In addressing society's ongoing debate over marijuana, one is struck by the incongruity of prohibition. On the one hand, you have a nontoxic inebriating substance, pot, that causes no health problems, but it remains illegal. On the other hand, you have a toxic substance, alcohol, that causes physical addiction and physical harm, but it is legal and even celebrated by our President, among others. Logical? Not in the slightest. Historical? Yes. It is because of history, and nothing else, that alcohol is accepted while marijuana is not.
The question then becomes, why did our ancestors choose alcohol in the distant past to such an extent that it became a celebrated tradition? I suspect the answer lies in the reluctance of ancient peoples to smoke. Drinking has an antecedent in diet, whereas smoking is an unpleasant experience for novices. Only with practice does smoking become palatable. Of course, this problem has been mitigated with the introduction of vaporizers, but in olden days, it may have been a deal-breaker for some.
Alcohol reduces inhibitions, which makes people more aggressive than would otherwise be the case. Drunk, we allow the amygdala more scope in controlling our behavior. This has proven useful for leaders that wish to persuade their followers to go to war. Hitler made his first grab for power in the Beer Hall Putsch.
Ancient Roman historians, who are our only guide for certain periods and locations of history, wrote of the barbarians living in northern Europe--yes, they would be among the ancestors of Hitler's followers--as spending their days in deep, dark woods, idle for the most part, fighting, drinking, and little else. Family feuds were common, as were feuds between individuals, and the Northerners would as soon fight among themselves as against the Romans. The reputation of the Northerner centered on courage and ferocity in battle, naivety and foolishness overall (in war or peace), and a fondness for beer. Perhaps these Romans were unfair observers given to stereotype, but even a stereotype may have a grain of truth in it. At any rate, there are insufficient records of the peoples dwelling in Northern Europe at the time of the Romans. Being for the most part illiterate, the barbarians left behind little other than artifacts such as jewelry and weapons of inferior craftsmanship. If you wish to leave behind a history, literacy helps, after all.
Romans preferred wine, with the exception of those troops serving on Hadrian's Wall, who adopted beer, the preferred beverage of the locals. Wine was consumed at almost every meal, unless one were poor or a slave, and even then, one usually had diluted wine as a beverage. With the possible exception of the New World and Amerindian nations, it would be difficult to find a civilization in human history where alcohol has not played a role, although any attempt to trace its precise influence would be difficult at best. This leads me to the next question, which presents a challenge for a good computer simulation. Any social scientists out there wish to take it up?
Here it is. What if our ancestors had chosen pot instead of wine and beer? Would there have been less war? Would the Roman Empire have endured to the present day? European history accuses our ancestors of a secession of bloody wars, often fought for little or no reason. You can scarcely find a century, between now and the birth of Christ, when a war did not erupt. Most of these wars were insipid. What was the logic behind the Crusades? The Spanish Armada, sent off to invade England during the reign of Elizabeth, was another huge blunder. Why invade? Why wage war? Why not wage peace? The first World War also comes to mind--millions dead, just because of the assassination of a prince. All these ills cannot be laid at the door of the pub, but is it just possible that alcohol played a contributing role?
The question then becomes, why did our ancestors choose alcohol in the distant past to such an extent that it became a celebrated tradition? I suspect the answer lies in the reluctance of ancient peoples to smoke. Drinking has an antecedent in diet, whereas smoking is an unpleasant experience for novices. Only with practice does smoking become palatable. Of course, this problem has been mitigated with the introduction of vaporizers, but in olden days, it may have been a deal-breaker for some.
Alcohol reduces inhibitions, which makes people more aggressive than would otherwise be the case. Drunk, we allow the amygdala more scope in controlling our behavior. This has proven useful for leaders that wish to persuade their followers to go to war. Hitler made his first grab for power in the Beer Hall Putsch.
Ancient Roman historians, who are our only guide for certain periods and locations of history, wrote of the barbarians living in northern Europe--yes, they would be among the ancestors of Hitler's followers--as spending their days in deep, dark woods, idle for the most part, fighting, drinking, and little else. Family feuds were common, as were feuds between individuals, and the Northerners would as soon fight among themselves as against the Romans. The reputation of the Northerner centered on courage and ferocity in battle, naivety and foolishness overall (in war or peace), and a fondness for beer. Perhaps these Romans were unfair observers given to stereotype, but even a stereotype may have a grain of truth in it. At any rate, there are insufficient records of the peoples dwelling in Northern Europe at the time of the Romans. Being for the most part illiterate, the barbarians left behind little other than artifacts such as jewelry and weapons of inferior craftsmanship. If you wish to leave behind a history, literacy helps, after all.
Romans preferred wine, with the exception of those troops serving on Hadrian's Wall, who adopted beer, the preferred beverage of the locals. Wine was consumed at almost every meal, unless one were poor or a slave, and even then, one usually had diluted wine as a beverage. With the possible exception of the New World and Amerindian nations, it would be difficult to find a civilization in human history where alcohol has not played a role, although any attempt to trace its precise influence would be difficult at best. This leads me to the next question, which presents a challenge for a good computer simulation. Any social scientists out there wish to take it up?
Here it is. What if our ancestors had chosen pot instead of wine and beer? Would there have been less war? Would the Roman Empire have endured to the present day? European history accuses our ancestors of a secession of bloody wars, often fought for little or no reason. You can scarcely find a century, between now and the birth of Christ, when a war did not erupt. Most of these wars were insipid. What was the logic behind the Crusades? The Spanish Armada, sent off to invade England during the reign of Elizabeth, was another huge blunder. Why invade? Why wage war? Why not wage peace? The first World War also comes to mind--millions dead, just because of the assassination of a prince. All these ills cannot be laid at the door of the pub, but is it just possible that alcohol played a contributing role?
Wednesday, July 29, 2009
Jon Interviews Barney Frank
I've always liked Barney Frank, but have never seen him speak for more than a brief video clip, so it was with interest that I watched Jon Stewart's interview a few weeks ago with this distinguished Senator from Massachusetts.
The gist of the interview was that Jon Stewart believed Barney Frank to have been against regulation of the housing market, whereas Barney Frank insisted the opposite, that he (and the Democrats) had been in favor of regulation. The underlying assumption, which I believe to be true, is that additional regulation would have avoided the precipitous collapse of the housing market. Jon appeared to question his notes and whether Barney's recollections were accurate.
I was surprised to discover that Barney has a lisp. However, other famous politicians had a lisp, notably Demosthenes from Ancient Greece. Barney's general appearance does not excite anticipation. My first reaction upon seeing him was, how did this old office clerk ever get started in politics? I tried to figure out his secret. My curiosity forced me to listen to what he was saying, which in time won me over. He speaks the same language as Jon Stewart, is of a liberal political persuasion, and is both witty and humble. He gives an impression of speaking with disarming candor. I find him willing to take calculated risks, which inspires respect. Some Senators, notably Henry Reid, come across as timid. Barney is one of the few guests I have seen wrestle the initiative away from Jon and cause Jon to appear confused. I would expect that Barney has been underestimated by others to their misfortune.
The gist of the interview was that Jon Stewart believed Barney Frank to have been against regulation of the housing market, whereas Barney Frank insisted the opposite, that he (and the Democrats) had been in favor of regulation. The underlying assumption, which I believe to be true, is that additional regulation would have avoided the precipitous collapse of the housing market. Jon appeared to question his notes and whether Barney's recollections were accurate.
I was surprised to discover that Barney has a lisp. However, other famous politicians had a lisp, notably Demosthenes from Ancient Greece. Barney's general appearance does not excite anticipation. My first reaction upon seeing him was, how did this old office clerk ever get started in politics? I tried to figure out his secret. My curiosity forced me to listen to what he was saying, which in time won me over. He speaks the same language as Jon Stewart, is of a liberal political persuasion, and is both witty and humble. He gives an impression of speaking with disarming candor. I find him willing to take calculated risks, which inspires respect. Some Senators, notably Henry Reid, come across as timid. Barney is one of the few guests I have seen wrestle the initiative away from Jon and cause Jon to appear confused. I would expect that Barney has been underestimated by others to their misfortune.
Tuesday, July 28, 2009
Corruption
Corruption is one of the worst failures in a politician. I was going to say, the worst, but among all possible failings, fanaticism must reign supreme. A corrupt man may yet retain scruples restraining him from greater evil, but a fanatic cares only for one ideal, and believes the end justifies the means, which is the belief at the heart of evil. In Iran, the Supreme Leader seems to embody both flaws, corruption and fanaticism, which is why his reign has been drenched in blood.
Traffic Cut in Half
I've noticed a precipitous drop in hits originating from Google searches. I have several theories to explain the loss. One is that I've been talking too much trash about corporations and Republicans, and they got to me somehow, but that sounds a bit reminiscent of Hillary Clinton's talk of a vast right-wing conspiracy. They just are not that organized, you know? The other theory is that a recent entry of mine contained a naughty word triggering Google to flag my site as adult-oriented. The word was penis. (See, I'm doing it again. Some people never learn, I'm afraid.) Google may have flagged me as a lyric pirate due to an adaptation made of a popular song; or the same entry might have gotten dinged for poor grammar and punctuation. The final theory is that I talked smack about Google Chrome. Maybe all of these theories are correct or maybe none at all. Maybe there's just a seasonal slump in Internet traffic. Who knows? Who even cares?
Questions for the Future
This is a list of questions that I think the human race should answer. To not know is a bit awkward.
The answers may be a long time in coming, but they are well-worth searching for.
- What caused the first primitive life forms to appear on Earth? If it was not God, then what? Why should life arise? At what stage of development does life differ from inanimate objects? Are viruses alive or dead?
- Why should our cells be a host to mitochondria? The human body plays host to bacteria, mites, fungi and other organisms that are unaware of being part of us. Could we be like these small organisms--a particle within a larger organism? Is the Universe conscious? Do we perceive impulses from the collective cosmic consciousness?
- What happened before the Big Bang? How long did the singularity exist--or is time itself relative to such an extent that forever just before the beginning could mean only a second of our time?
- Why should a collection of atoms, arranged in the way our DNA determines, ask questions about itself and about the Universe? What is the purpose of awareness? Is there a purpose? Why must there be a purpose?
- Is DNA like the code underpinning our software applications? Who then was the programmer? Or if there were no author, then why is DNA self-perpetuating? Why do organisms prefer life to non-life and take measures to survive?
- What will be the consequences when humans begin programming in DNA, redesigning future generations to be superior? Will the throwbacks be tolerated? What will the future gods do and where will they go?
- Is life real or is it virtual? If it is virtual, then what is the nature of the host server?
- Could life be designed in such a way that it were virtual rather than real? I believe that human personalities and memories can be stored upon a computer. An application could be written to store a human consciousness. Then will come a time when many people prefer to live in eternal virtual reality. A small tribe of caretakers would remain in the physical world to maintain the machines that store the virtual selves of the future people.
The answers may be a long time in coming, but they are well-worth searching for.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)