Don't Look a Gift Horse in the Mouth

The title of this blog entry is an antiquated cliche that does not really make sense anymore. Who receives gift horses, anyway? However, I think the cliche fits this recent article in the New York Times about the new "vape" cigarettes. First of all, vaporizing cigarettes are not new, but have been around since the 1980s, when the tobacco companies began exploring healthier alternatives to traditional cigarettes. It stands to reason that by avoiding combustion, a tobacco consumer inhales fewer carcinogens and other harmful ingredients. Why would anyone wish to discourage the development of a safer cigarette? The anti-smoking army raised a ruckus, then and now, over these safer cigarettes, but they are safer.

Do you know what causes the lion's share of harmful ingredients in cigarette smoke? Is it the tobacco, the ingredients added by tobacco companies, the rolling paper, the filter, or the nicotine?

The answer is none of the above. The lion's share of carcinogens are produced by the act of combustion. Cigarettes are dangerous because of smoke inhalation. Period. Vaporization seeks to reduce this danger, and it works. Although not all harms are eliminated, it still represents a huge stride forward in safety, and all tobacco consumers that are concerned about their health should immediately abandon the pipe for a high-quality vaporizer.

However, vaporization is not perfectly safe, as the critics point out. Vaporizing tobacco remains detrimental because of various chemicals that persist in the vapor. The FDA calls vaporizing machines "drug-delivery vehicles" and has outlawed them. The argument employed is, "What about the children?" This tedious old canard arises in almost every issue, except for the one where it really does apply: the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan. How do the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan affect our children? The mistakes of today are likely to be repeated by our grandchildren. The United States learned nothing from Viet Nam. Nothing at all. We have repeated the experience, except this time the middle class has been allowed to slumber without the compulsory draft. What will be the Viet Nam of our grandchildren? Will it be located in Africa, Asia, or a different continent? If history is any guide, our next foe will be poor, militaristic, and of little consequence to anyone besides our misguided leaders, who would prefer to waste a trillion dollars on bombs and missiles than accomplish anything of any importance.

What about the children? In the first place, children should not be smoking anything. Even to attack the idea, one must conjure up the image of kids using vaporizable cigarettes, which should not happen. But if it nevertheless does happen, a vaporizable cigarette is better for the children than a combustible cigarette. The elimination of fire from the product reduces both the attractiveness of smoking for children and the risk of those children playing with fire.

In the second place, why are we always asking what is good or bad for the children? If they are as weak and stupid as so many people suppose, then the human race is doomed. There is no need to plan for the future, because there will be no future. In reality, children tend to be resilient and smarter than they are given credit for. Otherwise, we would not be here today, because times past were far more dangerous than modern life in a developed country.

Vaporizable cigarettes will cut down on the health risks posed by nicotine consumption. Nicotine is a product that many Americans crave, and vaporization represents an efficient and healthier delivery mechanism. What's not to like? If you're a lobbyist in Washington, everything.

The Merfolk Transmuter

I've taken a detour from my usual route in Dungeon Crawl Stone Soup. Merfolk represent the race of choice if you wish to employ pole arms, and I do, because I want to find out just how effective they are.

I decided to become a Merfolk Transmuter, because Merfolk excel at transmutations, and there is a cheap, effective transmutation attack available, Evaporate, which causes a potion to explode into a cloud of harmful gas when thrown at monsters. This spell consumes little in the way of magical points and requires as fuel harmful potions, which can be manufactured from monster corpses.

In general, I opted to learn just a small number of low-level spells and rely upon a large and heavy pole arm in conjunction with a +5 javelin of returning as a missile weapon.

Since my character acquired a cloak of preservation, bestowing resistance to acid, and has acquired resistance to cold, I have decided to pillage the Slime Pits, which has a huge treasure hoarde on the final level.



For the time being, I can say the following--Minotaur Beserkers are still easier to play than Merfolk Transmuters, but the Merfolk has a huge edge in any aquatic environment. Indeed, the Swamp becomes the Merfolk's personal candy jar. I suspect that my Merfolk may require the protection of a shield rather than relying upon a two-handed weapon. With a beserker, things are easy. To kill a high-level monster, one need merely go beserk. With a transmuter, one had better have enough of the nastiest potions on hand to cast Evaporate; and against monsters that are immune to such toxins, all bets are off.

However, I see great potential in a higher-level transmuter that acquires the Alter Self spell, because mutations can be very beneficial. In addition, there is no reason why a Merfolk, which enjoys superior aptitude in Enchantments, cannot learn Beserk Rage to give it an awesome attack potential.

Feeling Disillusioned?

If ever you feel disillusioned by American politics, it is refreshing to sample the politics of other nations. Let us examine what is happening in Iran, for today. The hardliners backing the Supreme Leader--or Ahmadinejad (I can't determine which is the real power, and which has been relegated to a figurehead)--appear as close to evil as it gets. I am always amazed how the fascists are all the same, paranoid and convinced that others are out to get them. Their philosophy is strike first and don't ever ask questions. In Iranian politics, the candidates of both the Reformers and the Conservatives speak of Western powers as though we were the boogeyman. There is excessive concern about outside powers and not enough attention paid to what is happening among Iranians.

Compared to Iran, the level of discourse in America is sublime. I would vote for the Republicans every single time if their opposition were the Revolutionary Guard. One has to feel fortunate to live in a country where many freedoms already exist and more are possible. This isn't an excuse for complacency, however. Just throwing one's hands up and saying, "Well, society looks good enough for me; there ain't nothing too bad with things the way they are," that is just laziness. Good enough is never enough. (That is an irritating cliche, isn't it?) I believe in amelioration. That's another huge difference between liberals and conservatives. Liberals believe that things can get better. Conservatives believe that good enough is enough.

Pole Arms have their Charms

I was reading along in the manual for Stone Soup Dungeon Crawl the other day, a pleasurable activity, when I encountered an inconvenient fact that contradicts one of my recommended strategies. I quote from Chapter 3, "Skills | Fighting":

Being good at a specific weapon improves the speed with which you can use it by about 10% every two skill levels. Although lighter weapons are easier to use initially, as they strike quickly and accurately, heavier weapons increase in damage potential very quickly as you improve your skill with them.

This favors a policy of polearms or other species of high-damage weapon, which is contrary to what I imagined was the best class of weapon, short blades. Oops! My bad. You haven't been letting your minotaurs run about equipped with only a short sword, have you? If so, my belated apologies. I will refund all the money you paid for my advice. I mean it. Every last cent. Just submit your receipt, if you don't mind.

It does not follow that two-handed weapons are superior to one-handed weapons, because shields represent a potent defense and going without them is, shall we say, imprudent? At least for most races. One has to balance offense against defense. Nevertheless, now that I have learned something new about the game, I am tempted to play as a Minotaur that specializes in Pole Arms and Crossbows. Who needs shields, anyway? Hulkus the Minotaur scorns shields. All he needs is a trusty glaive.

My assumption that short blades were superior was based in part upon the preference of the ancient Roman infantryman for the short sword. It was considered the most effective weapon in close melee, at least by the Roman army, if not other ancient nations. This has do to with its effectiveness in stabbing and slashing in very close encounters, which is the preferred method by which the Romans dispatched their enemies. A longer blade suffers from reduced maneuverability. In combat, Romans relied upon their large shields. Behind the shields, the infantrymen could endure small missile assaults and enjoyed protection from the longer weapons of their foes. Upon achieving close quarters, the infantryman could whip out his fast short sword, enjoying an advantage at whatever form of attack that he chose.

Why I Detest Vampires

I detest vampires because they're not useful. Instead of sucking blood, they should suck fat. Then they could coexist with humankind and even become lucrative entrepreneurs. I would pay a vampire a hundred dollars per pound safely removed. If the vampire obtains nourishment thereby, so much the better.

How come our best fiction writers can't imagine a vampire that serves, rather than harms, the human race? Perhaps they have been drawing inspiration from our leaders all these years.

Do It Yourself Last Will and Testament

Here is a generic Last Will and Testament for single folk with uncomplicated lives. I shamelessly pilfered it from the Internet and dumped all verbiage that did not apply to single people with no children.

Whether it will stand up in a court of law, I don't know, but it seems right to me. Whether a will can survive a legal challenge depends on which side can buy the best lawyer (or judge). But this will represents a quick and cheap solution to a nagging problem that most of us put off until it is too late. The question is not whether to write a will, but why not write one? Although there is a potential downside--you supply your designated heir with a motive for the worst sort of crime, just like in an Alfred Hitchcock movie.

However, since gay marriage is likely to remain illegal for the foreseeable future, any gay couple should have on hand a Last Will and Testament to protect each spouse in the event of unforeseen tragedy.

---

LAST WILL AND TESTAMENT:

Short form of a will for a single person with no children

Will of _________

I, _________[name of testator], _________[if known by other names, add: also known as _________ and _________,] domiciled and residing at _________[address], _________ County, _________[state], declare this to be my last will and testament, and revoke all other wills and codicils.

I.

1. I am single and have never been married.
2. I have no children, living or dead.
3. My family consists of the following persons: _________[describe].

II.

Reference in this will to the term “_________” shall mean _________.

III.

I direct that my funeral expenses (including the cost of a suitable grave marker), the costs of administering my estate, and all legal debts allowable as claims against my estate be paid out of the general funds of my estate before any distribution of such funds to any of the beneficiaries mentioned below.

IV.

I direct that all taxes imposed by reason of my death on property passing under or outside this will be paid out of my residuary estate.

V.

I give and bequeath my personal effects, _________[describe], to the following persons: _________.

VI.

My residuary estate is all my property remaining after the dispositions specified in Paragraph V of this will, whenever obtained, including property not otherwise effectively disposed of in this will, and property as to which I have a power to appoint. I give, devise, and bequeath my residuary estate to: _________.

VII.

I appoint _________ as my executor, without bond, of this will. My executor shall have the following powers, in addition to those granted by law: _________.
I subscribe my name to this will on _________[date], at _________[address], _________ County, _________[state], in the presence of _________, _________, and _________, attesting witnesses, who subscribe their names to this will on _________[date] at my request and in my presence.



[Signature]



ATTESTATION CLAUSE

On the date last above written _________[testator's name], known to us to be the person whose signature appears at the end of this will, declared to us, the undersigned, that the foregoing instrument, consisting of _________ pages, including the page on which we have signed as witnesses, was _________[his or her] will. _________[He or She] then signed the will in our presence and, at _________[his or her] request, in _________[his or her] presence and in the presence of each other, we now sign our names as witnesses.


residing at
[Signature] [Street, city, state]


residing at
[Signature] [Street, city, state]


residing at
[Signature] [Street, city, state]

Environmentalism is a Tough Sell in Poor Countries

We're not going to sell environmentalism to India until they rise out of poverty.

When Indians point out that they have among the lowest per capita carbon emissions in the world, well, they are probably right. What can we say to that? Not much.

The U.S. must lead the way in carbon reduction technology, which is what we should have already done, had we not been ruled by imbeciles from 2001 - 2008, during which nothing was accomplished in the United States, save to wreck the economy and begin pointless wars that continue to drain scarce funds from the U.S. Treasury.

Instead of badgering trade partners like India over carbon reduction, the U.S. should be setting an example on the world stage. We remain, for the time being, the richest country in the world and should be developing and exporting green technology.

This is a novel concept for U.S. leaders: Americans manufacturing a product, themselves, that other countries in the world might want to purchase, other than bombs, bullets, guns, planes or ships. It may take time for U.S. leaders to grow accustomed to this strange idea. Rather than sending jobs overseas, and sending more Americans into poverty--actually producing something of worth in the United States. Something that does not kill people or damage their health.

Russia: Yet Another Criminal State?

If you were in any doubt as to whether Russia is, or is not a criminal state, this story speaks volumes. If you dare to speak out and cause the rulers distress, they will kill you, because they do not believe in democratic principles. Only when a State tolerates its nonviolent dissidents can it be said to have achieved a representative, Republican form of government.

Russia and Chechnya are babies on the world stage. They have a long way to go. One of the steps that these countries could take towards democracy is to have a functioning law enforcement organization, instead of the existing criminal organization, where the police are criminals and murderers. The next step would be to develop a legal system, instead of the current system where the leader kills anyone he wants dead.

Putin has been a disaster for Russia. The former KGB operative clings to an old belief in authoritarianism, which he associates with strength. Putin is wrong about this, just as he is wrong about a great many things.

Use Rechargable Batteries!

Many people continue to use disposable batteries. What's wrong with that picture? Plenty. Here are the lamentable qualities of a disposable battery:

1. You are wasting about a dollar per battery each time you toss one. Consider the economic factor alone.


2. You are adding to the nation's landfills. Need I point out that in most cases mankind is unlikely to ever reclaim any of the metal contents of the battery?


3. I understand that some disposables no longer employ mercury, a known environmental toxin. Does that make you feel any better? What about all the other metals contained in a battery? Do you want to drink that stuff? You will, in time, as disposed batteries corrode and leak their nasty contents into the water table.


4. You have to make special trips to the store to buy batteries, wasting gas, which contributes to global warming.

For less than thirty dollars, anyone in the United States can purchase an easy-to-use recharger that handles AAA, AA, C, and even those odd nine-volt rectangular batteries. I bought just such a recharger at Home Depot, although you can find them on E-bay as well. Always buy a recharger that handles the maximum variety of battery types, because otherwise you will have to buy new rechargers, which is another variety of waste.

Some retail stores hate rechargables. Wal-Mart, K-mart, Staples, et al, do not want you to use rechargables. They want you to continue the cycle of purchasing disposable batteries, because it results in more profit for them as well as additional visits to their store, where you are likely to purchase other items on impulse. Expect disposable batteries to occupy front and center of their in-store displays. To find the few rechargable varieties, one often has to hunt. Most major retail outlets offer only one variety, such as AA, as a nod to their customers who demand them. The absence of other varieties of rechargables, such as nine volt or AAA, discourages consumers from using any rechargables at all. Through a mixture of negligence and greed, but most of all greed, retailers are contributing to pollution, global warming, and the continued decline of the U.S. economy. In a better society, this policy would be considered a crime, and a special fee would be assessed against the retailer on a per diem basis to compensate society for the damage to the environment and the economy.

However, you can purchase unusual species of rechargable batteries, even nine-volt, from vendors on E-bay. They sell reliable rechargables at quite reasonable prices. This is not an option for everyone, because many people do not purchase online, even today in the twenty-first century. But it's a potential solution for readers of my blog. Visit E-bay and stop using disposable batteries of any variety.

Demon Blade or Demon Whip?

In Dungeon Crawl Stone Soup, I've begun to prefer demonspawn to all other races because of their wonderful propensity for beneficial mutations.

There's another, hidden benefit to demonspawn, as well. Hell-forged weapons are among the best that can be found in the dungeon, and a demonspawn gains racial bonuses for using a demon blade, whip, or trident. The question arises--which is better? The demon blade, demon whip, or demon trident? This is no trivial matter, because a demonspawn must choose which weapon class to study. A demonspawn that has achieved level fifteen in long swords is loathe to switch to Maces & Flails just because he discovers a demon whip.

Demon whips are, however, the most common class of hell-forged weapon, and I suggest that all demonspawn specialize in Maces & Flails for this reason alone. Balrugs almost always wield demon whips, for one thing. The second most common infernal weapon is the demon trident, and rarest is the demon blade.

I give demon tridents short shrift, because they receive a slight penalty (three points?) for one-handed use, and I prefer to equip all my demonspawn with shields. I only considered the one-handed weapons. The question then becomes, which is better--demon blade or demon whip?

The demon whip is faster:



But the demon blade causes more damage:



If speed is represented by 150 for the demon blade, then the demon whip is 20/150 faster, or 2/15. Fifteen goes into one hundred 6.6 times. Multiply 6.6 by 2, and the speed difference equals 13.2% in favor of the whip.

If damage is represented by 13/13 for the demon blade, then the demon whip causes only 10/13 damage, or 3/13 less damage. Thirteen goes into one hundred about 7.7 times. Multiply 7.7 by 3, and the damage difference equals 23.1% in favor of the blade.

Although the demon blade causes more damage, it is slower, but whether 13.2% is a factor worthy of note depends upon what I term your weapon philosophy. In my opinion, speed wins the day. This could be proven one way or the other by writing a computer program to simulate successive attacks with each weapon, but that's a bit further than I am prepared to go at this time. Instead, I rely upon intuition formed by experience.

I haven't even brought up the fact that demon whips enjoy a one-point bonus in accuracy, whereas demon blades incur a one-point penalty. Also, demon whips are as light as a feather, an important point for players lugging tons of junk. Finally, demon whips are plentiful, whereas the other weapons are difficult to find. The choice is clear for a demonspawn. The corollary to this general rule is that a demonspawn thus equipped had better carry a knife for slaughtering monsters.

Speaking of beneficial mutations, take a look at my character's list:



The mutations in bold red are permanent and arise as a demonspawn advances in levels. The mutations in gray text resulted from my character quaffing potions of mutation. Of course, sometimes harmful mutations arose, but I drank a potion of cure mutation to cure those. In general, mutations are helpful in the extreme, and every character should attempt to mutate, especially if a potion of cure mutation is available in case of an experiment that backfires.

Adverbs! Who Needs 'Em?

The orthodox position among writers is that adverbs should seldom be used, because they are superfluous. Adjectives are more acceptable, although they tend to be overused as well. Recognizing an adverb is part of the writer's job. In this paragraph, I believe there are two adverbs, seldom and more. To my understanding, these are insignificant and not as annoying as an adverb such as "tenuously," or for that matter, any adverb with an "-ly" serving as a suffix.

One of my favorite writers, Paul Bowles, holds a contrary opinion. He's got an enormous vocabulary and likes to flaunt it, an impulse I recognize. Bowles is what I term an adverb advocate. I disapprove, however.

Today, I was reading his novel, Let It Come Down, set in Tangiers, Morocco, during the 1950s, when I was struck by a series of adverbs that jarred me from my reading. I quote from page 456 of a 2002 volume compiled by Daniel Halpern for the Library of America:

"Darling, please!" She struggled a little to free herself from his embrace. Since he still held her, she squirmed violently and managed to sit up, bathed in sweat, wine, and grease. The air of the room suddenly seemed bitter cold. She ran her hand tentatively over her stomach and drew it back, disgusted. Quickly she jumped out of bed, locked the door into the corridor, drew her peignoir around her, and disappeared into the bathroom without turning on any light.

The trouble is, each of the "-ly" words stand out like third thumbs. Imagine this paragraph without the irksome "-ly" adverbs. Would any meaning be lost? To my mind, the paragraph works better without them, like so:

"Darling, please!" She struggled a little to free herself from his embrace. Since he still held her, she squirmed and managed to sit up, bathed in sweat, wine, and grease. The air of the room seemed bitter cold. She ran her hand over her stomach and drew it back, disgusted. She jumped out of bed, locked the door into the corridor, drew her peignoir around her, and disappeared into the bathroom without turning on any light.

This revision sounds better, although I concede it needs further revision, not just a reduction of adverbs. Here's another passage that disturbs me:

The thought filled him with ineffable happiness. "Ah, God," he murmured aloud, not knowing that he did so.

First of all, ineffable is not a good word to ever use. If something is ineffable, it is because the writer has not taken pains to analyze and describe it. Second, it appears that Bowles adds a supplication to the deity as a clarification for readers who do not know the definition of "ineffable."

Another habit of Bowles that irks me are the frequent digressions into philosophy. Even when hot, sexy action is going on, a Bowles character is liable to escape into an inner world of intellectual contemplation. I receive the impression the writer is bored with his own characters, with the story itself, and prefers these excursions to the action in the story. Prompted by the writer himself, the reader is prone to concur and put the book down.

These are some of the reasons it has taken me weeks to plod through Let It Come Down. Every time it looks like I'm on the verge of finishing the book, Paul drops a bucket of adverbs on my head, ejecting me from Morocco and placing me back in writing class, where I was taught what not to do.

Calling All Rodents

When I talk about Iraq, the U.S. economy, computers, Windows, any topic at all under the Sun, I don't get too many comments. I don't expect comments, either, although these topics tend to be highly controversial.

If I write about "Kodak," however, I receive an immediate comment the next day or soon thereafter, and not a casual one either but a passionate and informed comment. Just a coincidence? I think not.

Corporations hire people like you to read blogs like mine and post comments. I call these people "rodents." From google, they sniff for certain key words, such as "Charter", "AT&T", "Kodak", or "Kodak Easyshare." Then they click on the corresponding links, read the blog entries, and respond if any negative reviews are encountered. When positive reviews are encountered, they probably ignore.

I don't mind the rodents, because they let me know that the blog is functioning as expected. But other bloggers need to be aware of this phenomena. Another type of key word that will cause hits to arrive at your blog is the name of a prominent celebrity or politician such as Newt Gingrich. I assume these bigwigs employ "reputation consultants," i.e. rodents.

An interesting experiment would be to post a blog entry packed with brand names. The gravity of such a post might prove inescapable, attracting all the rodents of the Internet like a black hole.

KENMORE WAL-MART SANYO SONY K-MART KROGER'S PUBLIX INGLES BP SHELL EXXON CHEVRON HOME DEPOT LOWES NEWT GINGRICH KODAK CHARTER COMMUNICATIONS AT&T PACIFIC BELL NORTHWESTERN BELL AIG AIU GATEWAY DELL EBAY E-BAY PAYPAL COSTCO CONSUMER REPORTS AMOCO WALMART KROGERS SHARP PANASONIC OKI OKIDATA HEWLETT PACKARD CANON NIKON OLYMPUS BARNES AND NOBLES AMAZON...

Whew! Ran out of steam there at the end. Let's see what sort of mischief this arouses.

If you are a rodent and arrived at my blog because of the black hole posted above, drop a comment and let me know why you decided to become a rodent. What went wrong? Dropped out of college, joined a cult, what?

Torchwood, R.I.P.

Season Three of Torchwood is out, but don't hold your breath. The writing has taken a dive off a cliff. After watching the first two episodes, I'm not sure I want to continue.

• The show remains obsessed with Captain's Jack ability to resurrect himself from the dead. The scenes relating to Jack's regeneration are gross. I do not wish to observe partial human remains regenerating and reconnecting themselves, while the skeletal mouth screams in agony for a prolonged period.
• Where is the sex appeal, besides Gwen? The camera keeps focusing on Gwen when she is having a good hair moment. The camera is in dippy love with Gwen. Nice, but how about having intelligent words come out of her mouth, as well?
• Two of our favorite actors on the show are gone. The straight male guy and the Asian lady.
• The script is bland overall, devoid of the sexual and psychological tension we had come to expect from the first two seasons. Jack and Junto now profess to be lovers, but it just doesn't appear to work. Judging by their body language and choice of words, they don't seem to be anything more than colleagues--not even close friends. This represents a failure both in the script and in the acting.
• Once again, the government leaders are the baddies. The plot is formulaic and like a dozen other Dr. Who or Torchwood plots.
• Having characters snatching after kids and being mistaken for pervs is just weird.
• In the first two seasons, a hint of adultery (with Jack) added spice to the character of Gwen, but that seems to be gone.

Why, oh why, did Torchwood hatch yet another government conspiracy plot? That is so X-Files, Dr. Who, and Torchwood. The whole alien invasion theme is getting monotonous, as well. One could have hoped season three would have introduced something fresh and unusual. Is anyone else sick of the "London or Cardiff is being invaded by aliens" plot?

However, anyone who has not seen the first two seasons of Torchwood is missing a real treat. The first two seasons were splendid. If you are gay, you will love the show, but there's a little something for everyone.

Most shows go bad sooner or later. House, Six Feet Under, etc. They fall into a rut and can't seem to come up with new ideas that work.

LDS and Gays

This recent case where a gay couple was arrested for kissing reflects poorly upon the Mormon Church.

It would be in the interests of the LDS leadership to adopt a more engaging attitude toward homosexuals, because there are just as many gays among the Mormons as among any other group--if not more. By permitting assimilation, the Mormons can reduce attrition that might otherwise occur among gay Mormons. As things stand today, there are strong incentives for a gay Mormon to change his religious affiliation.

Bruno: Maybe Yes, Maybe No

GLAAD has protested the anti-gay stereotypes used in the new movie Bruno.

I am not sure how I feel about this. I pay attention to what the Gay and Lesbian Alliance Against Defamation says. They bring up important issues. However, the comedian that does Borat does not strike me as a homophobic type. His humor is crude and vulgar, but he comes across as a performer that relies upon shock and disgust overall. I have watched one of his movies in the past, and it was middling--funny in parts, but overall, tedious. I've never found him offensive, just a bit annoying. I'd have to see the scenes in question in order to judge the movie Bruno for myself. But the problem is, I don't want to see the movie. The guy just isn't that funny, and he's not eye-candy either, to be frank. So I guess I can be counted as part of the boycott. But it's on different grounds than GLAAD. Disdain, rather than disapproval.

The Mainstream Media's Contempt for the Daily Show

Katie Couric, interviewed on the June 11th episode of "The Daily Show with Jon Stewart," expressed the opinion that most viewers of "The Daily Show with Jon Stewart" are young college students. The implication is that "Daily Show" viewers are naive, inexperienced, and not as well informed as their elders, who prefer traditional news shows. This idea has achieved considerable traction among commentators across the political spectrum. It represents a reflexive dismissal of upstart Jon Stewart, who often criticizes his colleagues in the media.

I don't believe Katie Couric, and I never liked her, either. I watched "The Today Show" while she was on it, and I thought it was vapid, like most television shows.

Old people like me, who already have multiple college degrees under our belt, watch "The Daily Show" in preference to all other television news programs because it summarizes, digests, and interprets complicated events in a sensible fashion. To match the information conveyed by a single episode of Jon Stewart's show, one would have to watch ten to twenty hours of regular news programs and also be an astute and alert observer. "The Daily Show" therefore represents a much more efficient manner of absorbing current events. Jon Stewart's interpretations are in most cases correct, whatever his political opponents might like to suppose. I don't always appreciate his buffoonery, but I do follow his reasoning, and so does the rest of his elderly, college-educated, professional audience.

I am afraid that the old fossils of television just don't get it when it comes to "The Daily Show." It will remain popular until Jon loses his mind, which I view as the biggest potential danger to the show. There just does not seem to be a replacement for Mr. Big Mouth. No one can do what he does. Steve Colbert? Please. Not funny. Jon is funny, an important component.

Welcome to the new paradigm, television news heads. We want our information now, we want it correct the first time, and we don't want fluff. We're tired of the conservative stick-in-the-muds who hide behind lies, misinformation, and obfuscation. Give the facts to us fast, get it right the first time, get to the point, hit hard, dig deep, go further, and tell it like it is. If you can't do that, then get out of the way for the person who can.

This is Bravery

See pictures of the protesters in Tehran defying the armed Basiq militia.

That's bravery. I am looking at these protesters, and first of all they are unarmed. Their hands are not even clinched in fists. Second, they're not in the slightest way physically intimidating. They look like pleasant people you might meet at a dinner party.

Ancient Roman Triumphal Columns

I was reading along in one of my favorite books, "Life in Ancient Rome: People and Places," by Nigel Rodgers, a lavishly illustrated coffee table piece, when I was struck in the face by...I hesitate to say.

Instead, let me quote from page 70, the beginning of a chapter entitled "Triumphal Columns":

Commemorative or triumphal columns celebrated great individuals, especially military men. The Romans, like the Greeks or Egyptians, were passionate about perpetuating their fame by the most durable means available, but the idea of erecting marble columns topped by bronze or marble statues seems to have been a wholly Roman one...

...Columns known as columnae rostratae were erected from the 3rd century BC... By the 2nd century BC, relatively small columns celebrating successful Republican nobles' exploits were being erected...

The accompanying photo of Trajan's column looks like nothing so much as a penis. Phallic symbols were customary throughout the ancient city of Rome. So I believe the similarity in appearance is intentional.



This got me to thinking. Could war just be an exercise in penis comparison, as the comedian George Carlin famously said? I think so. Other than Boudica, there aren't many women on the record as having begun wars of conquest, and in the case of Boudica, she had ample provocation.

Load Your Browser Upon Booting

Nowadays, most of us use our PC for only one task on a daily basis--surfing the Internet. Non-internet applications comprise but a small portion of our activities. It makes sense, therefore, to load the default browser at startup. That way, you can press the "On" button for your PC, walk away to get yourself a cup of tea, and your browser will be ready and waiting for you when you get back.

This is easy enough to do in Windows XP. In Windows Explorer, navigate to C:\Documents and Settings\{whatever your username is}\Start Menu\Programs\Startup. In that directory, create a shortcut to your Internet browser. Presto! From now on, when your computer boots, it will load your Internet browser.

This is how every computer in the civilized world should be configured. It is simply ridiculous that people continue to click on a browser each and every time that they boot their PC. Why do it? You know you're going to surf the Net.

Be sure to construct your own home page, as well. That will save the lion's share of both time and aggravation.

The Defense of Marriage Act is an Abomination

The 1996 DOMA represents a blight upon the legacy of Clinton. Yes, worse than Lewinsky.

Passed with near-unanimous Republican support, the DOMA institutionalizes homophobia. It categorically denies federal recognition of gay marriages that have already received legal recognition by a state such as Massachusetts, which permits gay marriage. This means gays are denied Social Security benefits, retirement benefits, health care benefits, federal income tax credits and everything else.

I applaud the decision by the Massachusetts Attorney General to challenge the constitutionality of DOMA. Now is the time to strike down this terrible law, which is based upon the same ignorance that we have come to associate with the Republican Party, which is wrong on all of the issues across the board.

How is it fair that a worker should pay taxes into the Social Security system his entire life, and upon his death, his spouse never receives a cent of Social Security benefits? How does this promote social stability?

The "Defense of Marriage Act" should be renamed "The Discouragement of Marriage Act." Why on earth should we want to deter people from forming a long-term, monogamous relationship?

Bob Barr (R-Ga) was the bigot who wrote and sponsored "The Defense of Marriage Act," although he has since changed his mind and expressed regret over it. Regardless, for that one act, I wouldn't vote for Bob Barr for dogcatcher, and the number of Republicans I have voted for since 1996 can be counted on one hand. Bob Barr has expressed regret for many things he said and did during his time in power and has even come out in favor of decriminalizing marijuana, but now that he is out of power, all of that seems moot. The tears of a repentant criminal pale next to the real suffering of his victims.

Old Bob Barr was one of the key factors that turned me off, for life, from the Republican Party and conservatives in general. He promoted legislation that had a direct negative impact on my personal life. I was under the impression that Bob Barr was an emissary from Satan, sent to promote evil in the world, and Bob certainly gave everyone that impression. He took glee in hijacking the U.S. Congress during the late 1990s so that nothing could be discussed save issues relating to Clinton's extramarital affair with Monica Lewinsky. I remember the television news had nothing besides the affair--nothing in the world was deemed as important as a sperm-stained blue dress. The whole ordeal was sickening. Now even though that was an unpleasant experience for the whole country (thanks, Bob, for prolonging that mess), contrast it against the Bush Administration with their insane Iraq war. With the Democrats, you get sex scandals; so what. With the Republicans, war and economic devastation.

Bob Barr basked in the attention he received from all quarters as the "attack dog" of the Republican Party. Meanwhile, he worked to pass the "Defense of Marriage Act" which was a slap to every gay American. Millions of us now face a life without Social Security benefits, without numerous benefits that our heterosexual colleagues take as a matter of course.

If you're straight, you can do whatever you please, however you please, and at the end of your days, your partner gets everything coming to him or her from the U.S. government. That's as it should be. But an equal protection can't be extended to gays because of one man, Bob Barr, and his evil law. I understand that he regrets that law, and he should, because it has caused hardship for many Americans. It's just another pointless cruelty of the type that Republicans like to revel in.

I suppose the bigots receive pleasure by imagining all the hardships caused by DOMA. But you know what? The bigots are the ones that don't deserve to live in a country like America. Their great hope died in 1945 in a bunker in Berlin of a self-inflicted gunshot wound to the head. Let that be a lesson to bigots around the world, as to where their philosophy ultimately leads. A loaded gun, enemies all around, and a decision as to what to do next. Their great idol took the path of least resistance rather than rising up from his bunker to face the music. In the end, the haters are all cowards, meriting nothing but contempt.

Catherine Tate: Another Great Show from the UK

I've recently discovered a superb new comedy from the UK, The Catherine Tate Show. Much different from my other favorite, Peep Show, this show features a strong female lead and POV--Tate stars in every skit.

Catherine Tate is the best comedic actor (or actress) from the UK that I have seen so far. She's head and shoulders above my former favorites, Mitchell and Webb.

Catherine Tate's humor has a more innocent and apolitical character than Peep Show or That Mitchell and Webb Look. The writing isn't terribly sophisticated. In fact, I'd wager she writes the material herself.

Catherine Tate knows how to win over an audience and have them eating from the palm of her hand. Whether her material is funny or not, she makes it funny with the strange magic that she has. She may be a witch. At any rate, Mitchell and Webb require excellent material to be funny. Catherine Tate doesn't require anything at all. She just has to assume one of her odd, quirky characters and she gets plenty of laughs.

Reevaluating World War I

In a previous blog entry, I found World War 2 to be the most, and possibly the only, justified war in American history.

After watching a lengthy documentary on World War 1, I am persuaded that World War 1 had as much justification as World War 2.

In both cases, the indisputable villain, the instigator of the dreadful world wars, was the nation of Germany, the aggressor and invader. In both wars, Germany invaded and occupied Belgium, a neutral nation, without provocation, committing atrocities and causing great loss of life in the process. Had German forces remained in Germany, the verdict of history might be different, but the majority of the war was fought on the soil of countries that the Germans invaded. The loss of life was extreme for all nations concerned and the psychological effects, incalculable. Germany brought great evil into the world with their wars. It makes one wonder whether the world might have been a better place without Germany ever having existed.

In both wars, the United States was attacked first. In both cases, Germany engaged in unrestricted submarine warfare, which imperils neutral commerce and civilians. Germany's strategic goals at the time are irrelevant; the ethical issue prevails, and condemns them for all time.

Germany went so far during World War 1 as to promise Mexico territory in the United States, including Texas and California, in the infamous Zimmerman Telegram.

I was often taught in school that the Allies were vicious in the Versailles Treaty, which punished Germany with massive fines and restrictions on the size of their armaments. After learning more about World War 1, I am persuaded that the Versailles Treaty did not go nearly far enough. Permanent military occupation of all of Germany would at least have prevented the second world war. The young corporal Adolf Hitler could have become one of the political prisoners of the Allies, writing his mad screeds against Jews in solitary confinement in a maximum security prison located in Alaska. The largest beneficiaries of such a draconian policy would have been Germans, who would have been spared the millions of casualties of the next great conflict. But the Allies, battered and exhausted by the war, had no stomach for a continuation of militarism.

The world wars changed America in ways that were unfortunate. Ever since the world wars, our people have in general entertained a favorable opinion of foreign intervention and a crusader mentality--not to be confused with "crusader" in the sense of medieval Christian crusaders, but rather crusader in the sense of idealism, a belief in democratic principles. This sort of enthusiasm can exceed the bounds of caution, as seen by our present-day entanglement in Iraq and Afghanistan, places where democratic principles are unlikely to thrive due to the indigenous culture and history. Persia and Mesopotamia have no history of democracy. Ancient Persians bowed to the ground and kissed the dirt before their Emperors, who were treated as Gods, with absolute authority. A Persian Emperor could, and often did slay or torture subordinates for little or no reason. Contrast the abject submission of the ancient Persian with the attitude of the Greeks, whose free male citizens voted on the issues of the day. Overall, the culture of the Middle Easterners has produced fanaticism, repression, war, and oppression. For an example, look no further than Turkey during World War 1. The reaction of Turkey, upon being attacked by the English, was to assume automatically that the war was against Islam. With that irrational notion rattling about in their tiny brains, they turned upon the Christian minority in their midst, the Armenians, and committed genocide.

Essential Windows Utilities

When attacking Windows problems, one should have these utilities at one's disposal.

Macintosh users may laugh and point out they require no such tools. They may be right, but I paid a fraction of the price they paid for their Mac. For the price of one Mac, I can build two fully functional PC systems. This has long been true and is the only reason that I use a PC today. And when parts give out, I replace them. Replacing any single part on a Mac can be quite expensive. My rule of thumb, based upon price comparisons I have done in the past, is that any Mac part costs twice or thrice the price of a comparable PC part, and usually represents a step backward in technology, having less speed or less capability.

I recommend that every Windows PC user download and install the following:

• Infrarecorder is my open-source choice for CD/DVD burning.
  
  
• Notepad++ is a powerful replacement for Microsoft's lame text editor, Notepad.
  
  
• TrendMicro's HijackThis reveals all processes and memory-resident apps that are loaded in Windows. This is essential for ridding Windows of useless and obsolete memory-hogging crapware and checking for possible trojan horses.
  
  
• MyDefrag should be run once per month in order to defragment all of the files on a hard drive. In badly fragmented hard drives, a huge performance increase can be realized by running this utility. Some technophiles believe that fragmentation is no longer an issue worthy of concern, due to the high speed and large cache of modern hard drives. They are mistaken.
  
  
• Crap Cleaner is not really essential, but is useful. It disposes of accumulated junk files that Windows sometimes leaves lying around. I like to run Crap Cleaner prior to defragging my hard drive.
  
  
• SMPlayer is one of the best all-around video players, although for .mp3's it seems inferior to WinAmp. What's great about SMPlayer is that it will play just about anything. It also has a solid set of features, such as frame-by-frame advance, slow motion, skip forward, and skip backward. It can even remember settings for individual video files. If you stop a video and then resume it later, it picks up where you left off.
  
  
• Avast Anti-Virus seems to work pretty well against viruses and their online forum is alive and thriving, with many learned technophiles available to help users with their problems. I believe that Avast is superior to other anti-virus packages, despite being free for home users. I have had bad experiences with Norton anti-virus. In some ways, Norton is as bad as having an actual spyware infection, because of potential conflicts with other programs. A few months into my subscription, my Norton anti-virus decided to stop its automatic update process, and after that I had to manually update it about once a month by logging into their web site, downloading the update package, and executing it. That was a thankless chore and led me to question the wisdom of paying for an anti-virus package.
  
  
• Foxit Reader offers a minimal alternative to Adobe's enormous and cumbersome .pdf file reader. If you would prefer not to wait ten seconds in order to read a .pdf file and then be queried as to whether you wish to update the latest Adobe thing, use Foxit.
  
  
• Color Cop is essential for anyone who maintains any type of web site or blog. With it, you can select colors without hazarding guesses as to the results of hexadecimal numbers. If "F0F0F0" means nothing to you, install Color Cop. A neat little feature is the ability to borrow color combinations from existing applications.
  
  
• Firefox remains the browser to beat. The strength of Firefox lies in the many useful add-ons. I have never had any reason to doubt that it is a more secure browser than IE.
  
  
• ACDSee is a handy little photo viewer and editor, probably the best in its class, superior to the freeware products FastStone and Irfanview. Users of Adobe Photoshop, which is technically superior at editing photos, should understand that a market niche exists just below Adobe Photoshop. Users desire a lean, fast, cheap application for viewing and editing photo albums. Adobe Photoshop cannot compete here, because of its cost and cumbersome nature. However, Adobe Photoshop is the right choice when extensive editing is required, because ACDSee is quite limited in what it can do. Relative to its competitors, Irfanview and Faststone, which are free, ACDSee is quite expensive, and the annual update from version to version introduces few major new features. For those users that already own a copy of ACDSee, it is probably not worth upgrading to a new version. Their upgrade terms are not generous. Also, the program does crash on the rare occasion for no apparent reason, and patches or fixes are nowhere to be found. The only remedy is to buy the next version and hope for the best, something I have chosen not to do.
  
  

More About Honduras

Call me skeptical about the story emanating from the political establishment in Honduras, as reported in The New York Times.

The entire political establishment appears united behind the military takeover.

At first, I was impressed by the fact that both the Honduran Congress and the Honduran Supreme Court were united in opposing the former President Zelaya. In addition to this, the military commanders seemed to behave in moderation, avoiding the spilling of blood, and refraining from unnecessary brutality, at least insofar as being reported by the world media. The continued survival and freedom of Zelaya also demonstrates moderation by the military.

However, the Honduran Supreme Court and Congress might not be the equivalent of the U.S. Supreme Court and Congress. How good is a Supreme Court, anyway? It really depends upon which political faction has managed to stack the balance of the justices. The U.S. Supreme Court has proven itself to be a haven for political idealogues who are the farthest thing from neutrality and concern themselves with more than issues of law, treading into issues of policy. The quality of a Congress depends upon the gerrymandering of the electoral districts and the degree of influence played by money.

Then came universal condemnation of the military coup from almost all conscientious nations of the world. When Obama's voice was added to the chorus, I knew that there must be more to this story than meets the eye.

I was unfamiliar with Honduras in general, and knew nothing about Honduran politics, so I visited Wikipedia and looked up Zelaya as a starting point. What I read there seems to point a finger at the Honduran right-wingers.

Concerning Honduras, I do not understand the merit of having a Constitution, as they do, that has provisions that are self-defending, insofar as they can never be amended or altered.

The authors of the unalterable law may themselves all be dead. Are the dictates of the dead to be defended by the living against the living? Is this not irrational behavior?

Although we revere our deceased ancestors to an extent, I doubt many of us would sacrifice our own well-being in order to appease their imagined preferences.

The Greenhouse Gas Emissions Bill

Whether the Cap and Trade Bill is good or bad hinges upon a single question, which is scientific and not political in nature.

Does human activity comprise a major component in the production of greenhouse gases?

Most scientists say yes.

Republicans seem to think otherwise, and they cite a few scientists here and there that support their position.

I find it an unlikely coincidence that global warming has suddenly come upon the radar so soon following the Industrial Revolution and that its severity is increasing at such a rapid pace.

It is indisputable that the human population has increased exponentially in the past several hundred years, and that our race has reshaped the planet Earth, eliminating vast swaths of forest and jungle, and contributing to desertification in many areas, and adding vast amounts of exhaust gases, not just carbon dioxide, to the atmosphere.

If there is even a one percent chance that the majority of scientists are correct, then that would favor intervention by all governments on Earth, in order to protect future generations of human beings.

By finding alternatives to fossil fuels, we will also diminish the threats posed by dangerous regimes, many of which receive revenue from oil.

Even if the cost of Cap and Trade rose to such an enormous sum as a trillion dollars, then it still would be a bargain, compared to the costs of the Iraq and Afghanistan wars.

The Bill may even be a case of "too little, too late" at this stage, but at least it represents an attempt at doing what should have been done years ago.

You cannot persuade a conservative Republican about global warming. They want their wars, their bombings, and their prisons. Nothing else matters to them but violence, conflict, and money. They would gladly sacrifice both the East and the West coast of the United States, if only to have more wars. It is what they live for. If future generations are to die by the hundreds of millions, too bad.

Republicans take pleasure in the notion that "their tribe" will survive the catastrophes. What is "their tribe"? The wealthy, who will construct fortified compounds in mountainous regions, away from vulnerable coastlines. To the upper-class Republicans, global warming brings good tidings, washing away the impoverished and dusky races of the planet.

However, the consequences of global warming may not be predictable. The damage may not be confined to coastlines.

A planet with weather as mild and temperate as ours is uncommon, both in our Solar System and elsewhere, as we continue to discover.

Playing a dangerous game of "chicken" with the environment is not a gamble that is worth taking.

Whereas Bin Laden was a gnat in need of swatting, global warming is a dragon set to devour the human race. Republicans have squandered our nation's treasure in swatting a gnat, while turning their back upon a dragon.

Who was Sauron?

Sauron is a fascinating villain, all the more because he never makes an appearance in the main three books of "The Lord of the Rings." For those that are curious, I will reveal the following about this fell spirit, which derives from "The Simarillion."

Tolkien was a Catholic Christian, and the theology of "The Simarillion" bears much in common with classical Christian theology. If you have a familiarity with the legend of Satan, then you will better understand Sauron, whose name is by design similar.

In Tolkien's universe, there is an omnipotent, but not necessarily omniscient God by the name of Eru. There is also a Devil; there are two distinct and separate entities that filled that role at various times in the history of Middle Earth.

The first Devil, or Dark Lord, was Melkor, most powerful of the spirits created by Eru. When Melkor waged war upon Middle Earth, Sauron, a lesser spirit, served under him as a captain commanding legions of werewolves, vampires, orcs, and other fell monsters. Melkor was overthrown after many wars and imprisoned by the other great spirits or Vaya that served God (Eru). Sauron survived, however, and his power began to increase until he became the second and presumably last Dark Lord of Middle Earth.

The ultimate objective of a Dark Lord is to dominate all life upon Middle Earth in order to ruin Eru's creation. The motive for this remains unclear and appears to be based in irrational emotions rather than logic. A Dark Lord is possessed of an overwhelming desire to dominate and control all others. This is why one can draw a parallel between "The Lord of the Rings" and the fascists in certain governments like Iran, China, or Burma. Evil seeks to dominate and control at any costs.

If these fascists were rational and logical, they would understand that domination and control over others is not a proper end in itself. Instead, self-improvement, self-awareness, and cooperation and coexistence with others brings more benefits. This can be proven and has been proven to my satisfaction by thinkers such as Richard Dawkins. On a side note, South Park doesn't care much for Dawkins, by the way. He makes an appearance in a South Park episode, but only as a buffoon.

Happiness is not likely to come from a program of intimidation, aggression, cruelty, and brutality. Nor is scientific, literary, technological, or philosophical advancement likely to occur. Instead, evil begets more evil, and ignorance more ignorance. Creativity thrives in an environment of peace and freedom. If people are concerned over their safety and well-being, they are not likely to produce much of any worth, unless working in a factory producing widgets, and that certainly brings benefits in the short-term, but the future potential is quite limited.

This is why I believe that the leaders of Burma, Iran, and to a lesser extent China are shooting themselves in their respective feet. Their repressive policies are counter-productive. Instead of making their countries safer, their countries are rendered more vulnerable to every ill imaginable. When it is possible to openly acknowledge faults and shortcomings, a society can then take measures to address such problems. Where censorship is the law of the land, and freedom of speech is curtailed, then flaws persist in perpetuity, and any new flaws that arise also persist. In time, such a regime will sink under the weight of its own toxic environment. At any rate, why a fascist should want to live a nasty, brutish life fighting for the sake of pure evil, seems like madness.

Ancient Roman Epitaphs

I made a strange and delightful discovery today: ancient Roman epitaphs. These two were retrieved from the Isola Sacra cemetery:

"Here in my tomb I drain my cup more greedily, because here I must sleep and here must stay for ever."

---
"May the passer-by who has seen these flowers and read this epitaph say to himself: 'This flower is Flavia's body.'"


-- "Life in Ancient Rome: People and Places," p.248, by Nigel Rodgers, published by Hermes House.

I was inspired to look online for more Ancient Roman epitaphs from the cemetery at Isola Sacra, but all I can find online are hotels, resorts, and a few scholarly forums where archeologists chat with one another. What I was looking for was a comprehensive list of Isola Sacra epitaphs, such as was published by H. Thylander in 1952. I suppose this is one of those gotcha's on the Internet, where the subject matter is just too obscure to find any good material. Many scholars are discussing ancient epitaphs, but they never quote the epitaphs verbatim. Instead they write volumes analyzing and speculating on things, which I suppose is the nature of academia. I just wanted to read a long list of Ancient Roman epitaphs. The main attraction is that they are outside of our contemporary culture and either pre-Christian or primitive Christian--either way, of more interest than your usual cemetery, and even ordinary cemeteries are very interesting places to visit. Even when tombstones lack poetry or stories, the dates tell something, bringing to mind historical events that were contemporary to the dates.

Avoid Prescription Drugs

There is speculation that Michael Jackson died of a prescription drug overdose.

If the pop star's death seems senseless, at least there is one positive note. Many people will receive the message that prescription pills are not safe.

Plenty of conservative, anti-drug types such as Rush Limbaugh get hooked on prescription drugs, thinking "these pills are okay, because my doctor prescribes them. They were tested by a major pharmaceutical company, and approved by the FDA. I know they won't harm me." In reality, you know nothing of the sort. Prescription drugs can and will harm you, sooner than you think.

Part of the philosophy expressed in my blog is to question authority, even medical authority. Doctors have been known to prescribe poison. Many of their potions are unnecessary and many have side effects. The entire list of prescription drugs implicated in Jackson's death has not been published yet, but three that were mentioned in the article above were Xanax, Zoloft and the painkiller Demerol. That sounds like a devil's brew to me.

Xanax is prescribed when people complain about trouble sleeping or anxiety. It is a subtle sedative. I am ignorant about this drug and am not sure of its safety, but feel skepticism, because Xanax has only been around for a generation, and was designed for one purpose: to enhance shareholder wealth for a pharmaceutical company. Prescription drugs have no other purpose.

On the other hand, passionflower and valerian root have been tried and tested for centuries, being herbal folk remedies for insomnia and anxiety. No one will be getting rich if you try these things, and therefore no one has an ulterior motive for suggesting that you try them. Therefore I suggest following in Grandfather's footsteps and brewing a nice hot cup of passionflower and valerian root tea instead, if you want to fall asleep and have pleasant dreams. It is less likely you will overdose if you are drinking something, and those herbs are mild and safer than Xanax. They are also ten times cheaper.

Zoloft is a remedy prescribed by psychiatrists for depression, even manic depression. I am not sure how effective it is, but I have heard complaints that it turns people into zombies, putting people into a stupor. There have even been reports of people committing suicide or experiencing what is known as "suicidal ideation," or thinking about suicide, while on Zoloft. I am not sure how common that is, or whether Zoloft is safe or risky, but once again, here we are dealing with a substance only tested for a single generation, and many questions remain. Meanwhile, someone is getting rich because of Zoloft. Remember, what pharmaceutical companies care about is enhancing shareholder wealth, not making people better.

Demerol is yet another derivative of opium, used as a painkiller. The first time you take it, a "high" may be felt, but the second and subsequent dosages produce diminished effects, because tolerance develops as is true with most opiates. In cases of overdose, the human body shuts down, as if going to sleep, except it is a sleep from which one does not awake. Combined with alcohol, this drug would be particularly dangerous. If someone requires a painkiller on an ongoing basis, it seems to me that the underlying physical problem needs to be addressed, rather than continuing with the painkiller. Pain is the body's way to tell you that something is wrong and needs to be fixed.

People being only human, they mix and match pills without regard to the contraindications, as if the pills were candy.

In fact, prescription pills are ten times more dangerous than either marijuana or alcohol. Drinking liquor, you are unlikely to overdose--most people either know when to stop, or pass out before it kills them. Smoking pot, it is impossible to overdose. Marijuana is less toxic than any other substance ever ingested by humans, including caffeine or aspirin. Had Michael chosen marijuana, instead of prescription poisons, he would be performing today.

What makes the problem of prescription drugs more complicated is that the generic varieties sold over the Internet could contain literally any substance at all. They are not necessarily what they claim to be. Some prescription drugs that are sold on the street are counterfeits produced by criminal gangs. It is wise to stay away from these things.

---

I'm a bit put off by the extreme media attention that has been generated by Jackson's demise. I heard that the breaking news actually slowed down the Internet. Really? Is it really that big of a story? I liked his music myself, especially Human Nature and Do You Remember the Time, but I'm not thunderstruck in any way. Everyone is going to die. There's no escape. I guess it does make those of us who remember his music feel older, but he was only fifty, and if he had stayed away from the pills, he would probably still be alive.

An article in the New York Times picks apart an old skeleton, a testy exchange between one of Ronald Reagan's White House Staff and the entertainer's concert promoters. My reaction was, so what? In this particular case, I think I would side with the Reagan administration. Presidents should invite who they want to invite to perform, and should write letters of congratulation to whomever they please.

The media is really getting desperate for stories about Jackson. Suddenly any old yarn is publishable, as long as it includes the magic words Michael Jackson.

I don't think there will ever be as big a star as MJ was, though, in the current climate of the music industry. For my part, I could not name any of the top fifty performers right now--not a single one.

What Would a Country Without Liberals Be Like?

In Iran, the conservative mindset is on full display in all its glory at the present time. A senior cleric is urging severe punishment of the election protesters.

The urge to punish others for vices or peccadilloes, real or imagined, is intrinsic to the conservative mindset. You cannot be a true conservative without taking a genuine delight in severe punishment. One can see this trait to a lesser extent in Republicans in the U.S. Listen to how Republicans talk about prisons, and how they delight in making prisons abusive, degrading and traumatic environments.

Iran's conservatives make Republicans look moderate by comparison. Iran provides a textbook example for where the conservative mindset ultimately leads, once the right-wingers have eliminated all of their opposition and are in the process of mopping up.

If you want to see where the liberal mindset leads, visit Holland.

Of the two countries, I think Holland is more pleasant, although the cost of living is also higher, because plenty of people want to live there. Not too many people are queuing up for immigration to Iran just at the moment, though. Being sentenced to fifty lashes for drinking a beer is not something that most people want to risk.

South Park Will Disapprove (Again)

Trey Parker and Matt Stone will soon be writing another South Park episode blasting Hollywood celebrities. Nothing irritates them more than a celebrity meddling in politics.

Recently those Hollywood celebrities have been testing South Park's patience once again. Brad Pitt and Angelina Jolie have spoken out against human rights abuses in the diamond mines of Zimbabwe.

This is certain to provoke Trey Parker and Matt Stone.

According to South Park, celebrities should shut up about political issues and never speak out. They have made this point enough times that it has become a standard South Park theme.

For my part, I think it is refreshing when celebrities speak out about real issues impacting real people that might otherwise get buried in the latest news about a politician's extramarital affair. South Park is never going to talk about real issues, other than to cast cynical derision upon those that do.

I Will Gladly Pay $120 For Windows 7

Some people complain that the list price of Windows 7 is too high at $120.

Microsoft, fear not!

I will gladly pay $120. For that price, I assume what I'm getting is a flawless operating system with no problems lurking in the shadows for the end user.

If I do encounter a Windows problem, then Microsoft will pay me $50 an hour for solving it. Right? Plus a refund of the original $120 cost?

Did I make an incorrect assumption anywhere?

If Microsoft is not making a flawless operating system--if the end users are expected to debug the OS, as we did with Windows 2000 and XP--then $120 is a joke. Microsoft should be paying us to install the kludge. For my part, I've spent at least two hundred hours (conservative estimate) troubleshooting Window-ish problems over the last ten years. If I were compensated at the level of Microsoft's phone-techs, that would amount to $10,000.

The Daily Show and Newt Gingrich

I'm an avid fan of The Daily Show with Jon Stewart.

The May 19th, 2009 episode was something special. Jon Stewart interviewed Newt Gingrich once again. In previous interviews, I have felt that Newt got the best of the interview, subverting the tone of the conversation to his gain.

Jon Stewart is more than a match for most of his guests. He is the most fast-witted television personality alive today. He is learned on history, science, and politics, and knows much more than people might assume by his buffoonery. Jon plays the fool but is wise far beyond his years. I never watch Jon without concluding that he may be right, even on such few occasions when my original opinion differed from his own. He speaks to the better nature in all men, although he does have a markedly cynical wit, and sometimes seems clownish. He has the rare gift of making people laugh.

Gingrich is an ideal guest for The Daily Show, because although he is a diametric opposite on most political issues of the day, he is--unlike much of his tribe--close to being Jon's intellectual equal. But he's not quite there. Remaining cloistered within his bland tribe has retarded whatever brilliant spark might have been there long ago.

However, for a politician, Newt is very cunning and fast-witted, and his physical size, a factor of psychological intimidation, is rather greater than Jon's. In addition to this, Newt possesses a steadiness and calm, and his voice conveys a higher level of discourse, as one associates with greatness--such figures as George Washington. However, he is always cunning, and he delights in making false statements seem reasonable. Some minds take a perverse delight in ripping people away from truth and into the liar's personal constructions of reality. They are repressed artists who really wanted to create something of beauty, but instead went into business or politics and began weaving webs of intricate and fantastic lies, which to their mind are magnificent to behold and bring them much pleasure.

But in the May 19th, 2009 episode, Jon was prepared. Watching these two great minds spar was like watching a prize fight. Newt got in some good licks himself. He made my heart frown on socialism--how dare Obama be socialist? But then Jon pointed out that the military is a socialist organ, among many other segments of society. Socialism is just a word designed to press a button in people, putting them in mind of the U.S.S.R. or Red China.

I was intrigued by their body language. Newt seemed to intimidate Jon in some way. Jon crouched, not looking Newt in the eyes. Was this by design, or unintentional? I suspected that Jon had a few surprise punches in store for Newt, and I was right. One thing I'm sure about is that the show was unscripted.

Inviting Newt on the show was a great idea, because it attracted Republicans to the show. Just preaching to the choir will never gain any converts. On the other hand, Newt benefited, too, by getting the opportunity to flog his new book. Any publicity is good publicity, as they say in show biz.

Iran Has a Martyr

A thousand years from now, history will remember two names among others.

Neda Salehi Agha Soltan, slain by the Iranian regime's assassins. The innocent woman will be remembered and beloved as a martyr.

On the other hand, the accursed dictator of Iran will be recorded as just another rotten villain in a long line of rotten villains. Of no interest, save to be studied like a virus, that future examples of his contagion can be defeated.

Obama Can Make Us Laugh

Although it may seem trivial, I think it's important that our President can crack wise and make people laugh, as in this latest example. Wit may not be number one on the list of desirable traits in a President, but in hard times like these, a bit of humor goes a long way.

Finished Watching "Universe"

I finished watching the four-dvd set of "Universe," a ten to twelve hour-long documentary about the origins, composition, and nature of the Universe.

Everyone is familiar with the story of Adam and Eve as related in Genesis. It's all wrong, of course, like much else in the Bible. The documentary never quite says so in words, but the implication is there for anyone with a mind to think.

The actual story of the Universe is that everything, including our bodies, originated from a singularity, a single point in space. During the Big Bang, the singularity began expanding like a balloon. The expansion never ended. Today, all matter is accelerating. The Universe is not static, but is increasing in size as it expands. Every object in space-time is in a state of motion. Eventually, the velocity will become too great, and matter itself will disintegrate.

This implies that there was a finite beginning, and will be a finite end, to the Universe as we know it. We do not, however, know what caused the Big Bang, the singularity, or what happened prior to the Big Bang. It may be that the Universe is in a constant state of contraction followed by expansion. This notion appeals to me on an intuitive level because it reminds me of a bullfrog puffing up with air, croaking and then beginning again. It also supplies a neat answer to the ticklish question of what happened before the Big Bang.

Helium was the original element, and during the Big Bang, hydrogen formed and continues to form inside of stars, along with other elements created from helium by the extreme heat and pressure of stars. Apparently, all the elements of the Periodic Table derive from helium, including hydrogen, gold, and oxygen. The substance of the human body derives ultimately from stars; we are stardust, as is much of the planet. Hydrogen is the most common element in the Universe, helium the second-most common.

What bothers me about documentaries like this are the scary implications. One gets a strong sense of the insignificance of humankind, and of planet Earth, when contemplating the vastness of the Universe. I believe I remember hearing that there were 125 billion stars in the Milky Way alone, and our galaxy is just one of many, and our planet is a relatively young one. The implication is that there is probably intelligent life at many other locations around the cosmos. We just have not encountered it yet. Sooner or later, these alien civilizations will receive the radio signals that we began beaming into space in the 1930's. The prospect of a planet as wonderful as ours may be quite tempting. I am sure that any race more advanced than ours would want our planet for their own, and make quick work of us, one way or the other. To them, we would seem about as advanced as ants. The only thing really protecting us, or rather buying us some time, is the vast distance between our world and everywhere else.

Oh, another worrisome thought is that the Andromeda galaxy, twice the size of our own, is on a collision course with the Milky Way. Maybe the Republicans should muster up a "Coalition of the Willing" to fight against the Andromeda galaxy. How much aid should we give to Poland, so that they will send a lab tech over to NASA to help with the counter-measures? And how, exactly, do we stop the Andromeda galaxy?

The footage, in part computer-generated, but with some actual footage from NASA spacecraft, reminded me that everything in the Universe of a substantial size--whether a star, planet, or moon--seems to be round. This is probably due to gravity. For this reason, the perfect symbol for a religion would probably incorporate a circle somewhere. The symbol for Wicca comes to mind, or possibly Taoism.

I don't understand life. Why does life exist? How did it begin? Why should it be necessary? No world religions provide satisfactory answers to this question. Instead, world religions appeal to the selfish ego, telling man what he wants to hear: that he is the central most concern of a loving God who watches over and protects him. A comforting and consoling thought, but false, because dreadful things, as we all know, happen quite easily. And we also know that once a person dies, they stay dead. The dead do not visit us. If they did, we would certainly be busy entertaining them, because there are more dead than living.

From what we know, life is unnecessary in the ordinary running of the cosmos. The cosmos takes care of itself without any help from life. Why should molecules join together and, over the course of evolution, develop a certain brand of self-awareness?

One idea that has occurred to me is that life may create the universe, rather than the other way around. Our thoughts and actions may influence the nature of matter, time, and space, in some way that we don't understand. I've read about similar themes in articles concerning quantum mechanics. But I don't know. This sounds suspiciously New Age to me. But the Universe is not a place where things tend to happen for no reason. Why should life be a thing separate and distinct from non-life? Maybe reality is more like television, and less like reality as we perceive it. The Universe could be unreal. Maybe a virtual reality is closer to the truth--sort of like "The Matrix."

How self-aware are we, anyway? Maybe we are more like robots than like actual thinkers, as we prefer to believe. Much of what we say or do could be predicted, could it not? I have always been of the opinion that human beings are nothing more than elegant computer programs, predictable in every way, shape, and form. Moods can be programmed into a computer. You simply assign values to variables that influence programmatic behavior. Ideas can be programmed into a computer, as can beliefs, opinions, degrees of certainty, and degrees of ambivalence. It's just a matter of time, probably about thirty years, before AI develops a computer that thinks as well as humans do about all subjects. All indications point to a world where computers will be superior to humans. This means all workers will be obsolete and expendable. War will result--the haves versus the have-nots. The very rich will decide that the poor need to die, that the rich will have more space and end the harms caused by pollution to "their" environment. This means me, you, our neighbors and about 99.8% of all humans will be liquidated, because they can be replaced by droid-slaves, which work for free, never complain, and are better than we are.

The future looks like a scary place. I'm kind of glad that I don't have to be there. By the time AI gets good enough to pose a risk, I'll have used up all my time on this world already and be food for worms. But for younger people, they have a future of increasing temperatures, declining wages, increased violence, increased warfare, widespread radioactivity from nuclear war, and severe weather.

In the short term, I would like to know whether there is life on Europa, which orbits Jupiter, or Titan, which orbits Saturn. Of the two, Europa seems the most promising. Although the surface is cold and radioactive, beneath the surface there may be oceans of liquid water. It is very interesting that planet Earth is not the only large body, even in our tiny solar system, with large amounts of water. If water is as widespread a phenomena elsewhere as it is here, then the chances of life improve considerably.

How Would We Begin to Fix the Republican Party?

The planet Earth is approaching an Apocalyptic future, and Republicans bear much responsibility for squandering the nation's wealth on pointless overseas conflicts while ignoring the real issues confronting America, such as dependence upon fossil fuels.

How can the Republican Party make amends for the catastrophic strategic and tactical mistakes they have made?

Why did the Republican Party choose ignorance, when education is available via the Internet or the public library, requiring little effort to obtain?

Why did the Republican Party turn its back upon science and learning?

Instead of working on the problem of global warming, the Bush Administration tackled Iraq. To compound this error, the Bush Administration conducted a dirty war, using lies and deception aimed at the American public and at Congress. Iraq is a quagmire that will continue to drain funds from the U.S. government for years to come.

No one has harmed America worse than the Republican party. Not Osama Bin Laden, nor Qadafi, nor Saddam Hussein. In fact, it would be difficult to find an enemy, domestic or foreign, that has damaged the United States worse than George W. Bush.

I have no idea how to fix the Republican Party. All that I can suggest is education. Learn more about the world--science in particular, but neglect history at your peril. The level of ignorance in the Republican Party is extreme and encompasses everything from top to bottom and left to right.

The Adultery is the Least of the Offense

A U.S. Senator from Nevada confesses to an extramarital affair.

Adultery is not the part that bothers me the most about the Senator's conduct. Rather, it is the blatant hypocrisy demonstrated by how the Nevada Senator demanded in years past that Bill Clinton resign over his affair. This is typical. When Sen. Craig was arrested in a men's restroom, he too had been one of the senators who had condemned other leaders for their sexual conduct.

Being judgmental about sex is fine, as long as you do not have functioning gonads. Castrate yourself first, and then you can go about judging others from your pure and celibate station in life. That is my advice to politicians everywhere.

These conservative Republicans seem to have a real difficulty in examining themselves and becoming aware of their own actions and the consequences of their actions. Being self-aware is the hallmark of a political liberal. In fact, the entire philosophy of liberalism places emphasis upon self-awareness and self-realization. Conservatives favor the dark forces of repression, stagnation, and ignorance.

A Hospital Without a Heart

A lesbian is denied access to her injured partner in a hospital. This is the latest example of a hospital behaving abominably.

We need to move toward a world where bonds between people are nourished and encouraged. It is in our self-interest to encourage social bonds, because these promote the greatest happiness. The more unhappiness in the world, the more it will perpetuate. Emotions are shared between people faster than viruses. If you have ever passed a stranger with a frown or a scowl, even though no words may have passed, you felt an alteration, however trivial, in your own mood.

You cannot render a cruelty upon one person or one group and then expect the damage to be confined solely to that target. Such an expectation is unrealistic, because in reality we are interconnected, like points on a net. Pressure applied to one point also pulls at other points. What happens to one influences all. Examples are made, and examples are followed, and sometimes, new variables are introduced. If today the victims are the homosexuals, then tomorrow, why not a religious minority or ethnic minority? What is done to one, will be done to others.

Relationships stabilize and pacify. A nomadic and loveless existence does not lend itself to well-being for most people. If one has no intimate ties with others, then what basis can there be for morality? Morality depends upon close intimate ties. Monogamy, insofar as it lends itself to healthy relationships for many people, should be encouraged and cherished. Healthy, long-term relationships are in the public interest, and society must not pass up the golden opportunity to enfranchise additional recruits. Every bit helps. Enfranchise the ones who wish to eat bread and drink wine with you. Accept them into your group. Your group will then be the wealthier and the wiser. Assimilation increases the strength of the absorbing body. United, we are more than we are if we are divided.

To the extent that relationships are discouraged, a society becomes more aggressive. The differences between our relatives on the evolutionary tree, the Chimpanzee and the Bonobo, illustrate the consequences of aggression. The warlike chimps have battles that result in dead chimps, and bloody struggles for dominance that sometimes result in injuries or fatalities. The Bonobos, on the other hand, spend their days loving one another, both in the physical and brotherly sense, with the result that violent conflict is seldom heard of among Bonobos, and when such conflict does arise, it seldom results in severe injury.

Human society can proceed in either manner. We can behave like the warlike chimps and spend our days fighting and committing atrocities that will stand to accuse mankind through the ages. The history books seem to have enough of those things. Or we can behave like Bonobos and simply accept and enjoy relationships with others. The choice is between misery and happiness. Although misery nourishes the ego, happiness feeds the whole person. Happiness should win.

What I Like About "Impromptu"

Impromptu is my favorite movie of all time. I have watched it at least nine times, possibly more. It never fails to entertain.

What makes the plot unique among films is that Chopin and George Sand are portrayed as sexual inverts; that is to say that George Sand is a woman with the psyche of a man, whereas Chopin is a man with the psyche of a woman. Instead of developing homosexual orientations, as one might expect, they fall in love with each other. Although this seems at first confusing, almost bewildering, the story proves to be beautiful.

It is a historic fact that Chopin and Sand lived with one another for many years, mainly on the island of Majorca, the site of George Sand's ancestral lands. However, their union produced no offspring and ended badly. Sand was more or less a groupie. Once she had her fill of the prestige associated with Chopin, she shrugged him off. He represented just another trophy for her collection of famous lovers. History avenged Chopin, however, because today his music is more alive than ever, whereas no one reads Sand anymore, and with good cause because her novels were insipid and verbose.

Supreme Court Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg

Ruth Bader Ginsburg is among the most interesting women in the U.S. I know, she is not one of the usual suspects from Hollywood or Youtube, and she is, well, over forty?

But she writes well and has a warm nature and even remarkable candor. Read this moving tribute she wrote to retiring justice David Souter. What makes it priceless is that she says in effect that David was better than all the other justices on the Supreme Court. The only reason I can think of somebody going out on a limb like that is genuine affection. I imagine the next meeting of the justices might be a bit awkward. Seldom do we see such an expression of genuine affection in the public circus. Usually people are tearing other people down or mixing sarcasm with their supposedly friendly jokes.

Although I'm not familiar with Ginsburg's judicial track record, I'm willing to bet I would agree with Ginsburg on 90% of all cases that passed the Supreme Court docket.

Was the U.S. Civil War a "Good" War?

Growing up, I was taught in school that there were at least three good American wars, possibly more, but three were in the canon of sacred wars, immune from criticism:

1. The Revolutionary War
2. The Civil War
3. World War 2

Of these, I still believe that World War 2 was a justified war.

The Revolutionary War may have been the least justified. The main instigators were not the poor, but the wealthy, who demanded less taxation and greater control over domestic affairs. Remaining within the British Empire, the United States might have benefited from the future British decision to outlaw slavery, thus avoiding the Civil War. In time, the U.S. would have been as free of colonial domination as Canada is today, but without so much loss of life.

About the Civil War, I have doubts, mainly based upon the fact that over six hundred thousand Americans lost their lives. The vast majority of these casualties were incurred on land. At the same time, the Union naval blockade may have been the single greatest factor destroying the war-making capability and economy of the Confederate South. The Union possessed a navy far superior to the Confederacy. In my opinion, Lincoln was too hasty to bring the South back into the fold. After the Confederates in Charleston fired upon Fort Sumter, Lincoln used that as a pretext to begin a bloody land war that lasted about five years. As Commander-in-Chief, Lincoln's conduct of the war was abominable. His choice of generals was poor, particularly in the early years. If one's heart and mind is set upon waging war, one had better be extremely good at it.

A better strategy would have been to maintain a naval blockade and simply wait for the South to return, with the single condition being the abolition of slavery. Lincoln instead committed the North to an immediate invasion which led to great loss of life and wealth and bitterness for generations to come. Lincoln was not, after all, a great President. A great President would have brought the South back without hundreds of thousands of casualties. It was entirely within the realm of possibility.

World War Two was completely necessary due to the nature of the enemy: evil and very powerful, posing a threat to civilization itself. Europe embodies progressive civilization. A world without Europe is unthinkable; and more to the point, a world without England or France, both beacons of democracy, is unthinkable. Look anywhere else in the world and it is difficult to find countries where free speech is sacred and human rights are respected, with the exception of the New World and Europe. Whether the bombings of Hiroshima or Nagasaki were justified or not is debatable, but of less importance than the ultimate victory in both theaters of war (Atlantic and Pacific) of the Allied Powers. The Axis Powers represented the closest approximation to absolute evil the world has seen in modern times. There can't be much question about whether the Axis Powers would have used nuclear weapons, had they developed them. The mistakes made prior to World War Two have to do with a failure by the West to appreciate the threat posed by Hitler and the advisability of stopping a growing problem early in its development.

The Bush Administration attempted to draw a parallel between Saddam Hussein and Hitler, which is laughable at best and never really caught on with the American public.