If finished my dissertation defense today. With a few minor revisions and a hefty amount of paperwork, I will turn in the final written version Thursday and be done with grad school. So I guess I am officially allowed to be a science geek. I still don't understand what it's a doctor of philosophy. I didn't philosophise anything and I'm certainly not a doctor. I don't operate on people or prescribe medication or make people sit in a sterile room for three hours when they showed up early for their appointment.
A few more weeks of hard work and I'll get two weeks off before starting my new job. Hopefully that also means I'll have a few minutes a day to keep this sucker updated.
A big shout out to everyone that came to defense and everyone that put up with my crazy science crap.
Thursday, November 29, 2007
Friday, November 23, 2007
An open letter
to the asshole that starts his car in the parking lot and then stands behind it smoking a cigarette 3-4 times a day:
What is this, 1960? You don't have to idle your car to warm it up. You haven't had to do that for at least a decade. Unless you live in the far north. Then I'll give it to you. But you live in southern California retard. It's not even required during winter here.
All you're doing is wasting a useful resource. In a day, you're burning at least a buck worth of gas going nowhere. That's $7 a week, $30-31 a month (but you save a few bucks in February), $365 a year. You could have bought an extra 8 tanks (assuming $45 a tank) or paid somebody to take the stupid-ass spoiler off your trunk lid. Instead, you've decided to add it to our atmosphere. Thanks douche bag.
What the fuck? You've got a $40,000 car and you live in a shit hole apartment complex by the freeway. You can't afford an air conditioner that doesn't require 10-15 minutes of warm-up time? You waste expensive, non-renewable resources because you have an outdated concept of how to start a car or because you need your car to be the perfect temperature. Hey numb-nuts. Guess what. It might get to the right temperature if you didn't leave the fucking door open while idling.
Thank you, asshole who warms up his car and cools down his leather seats. It's comforting to know that every afternoon when I come home you'll be there to remind me how consumerism leads to wastefulness. And I'll be reminded to do better on conserving resources in my own life so that you'll always have gas to burn while you have your nicotine break.
I have nothing against smoking, particularly outside near the freeway where the air is already about as unhealthy as you can get, but I hope you get throat cancer.
Sincerely,
the guy who has to taste your car every time he wants to go outside
What is this, 1960? You don't have to idle your car to warm it up. You haven't had to do that for at least a decade. Unless you live in the far north. Then I'll give it to you. But you live in southern California retard. It's not even required during winter here.
All you're doing is wasting a useful resource. In a day, you're burning at least a buck worth of gas going nowhere. That's $7 a week, $30-31 a month (but you save a few bucks in February), $365 a year. You could have bought an extra 8 tanks (assuming $45 a tank) or paid somebody to take the stupid-ass spoiler off your trunk lid. Instead, you've decided to add it to our atmosphere. Thanks douche bag.
What the fuck? You've got a $40,000 car and you live in a shit hole apartment complex by the freeway. You can't afford an air conditioner that doesn't require 10-15 minutes of warm-up time? You waste expensive, non-renewable resources because you have an outdated concept of how to start a car or because you need your car to be the perfect temperature. Hey numb-nuts. Guess what. It might get to the right temperature if you didn't leave the fucking door open while idling.
Thank you, asshole who warms up his car and cools down his leather seats. It's comforting to know that every afternoon when I come home you'll be there to remind me how consumerism leads to wastefulness. And I'll be reminded to do better on conserving resources in my own life so that you'll always have gas to burn while you have your nicotine break.
I have nothing against smoking, particularly outside near the freeway where the air is already about as unhealthy as you can get, but I hope you get throat cancer.
Sincerely,
the guy who has to taste your car every time he wants to go outside
Friday, November 16, 2007
Sacajawea - little know it all that won't shut her maize hole
Turned in my dissertation to the committee today. I think that deserves a gallon of ice cream and some sweet mermaid sex.
I was having a debate today about parenthood. Apparently, I'm appallingly awful on the question of "family values". So here is my argument:
America, particularly the governmental, media, and religious aspects, love to discuss how the breakdown of families is happening at an alarming rate and what we can do to stop it. I'm referring specifically to parents raising children and spending time with them. I guess that is the great goal of man - get married, pump out a few babies, then die before you become a drain on social services. Why is this the almighty American dream? Because some douche bag with a big pointy hat said so.
Back to the point. We don't really believe in child rearing. The economic and social system in this country is not structured to nurture parental care of children. A family of four cannot easily survive on one paycheck, especially for lower income families. So both parents have to work. Next, corporate life is not arranged around time for baseball games, school plays, and homework. It's about maximizing employee work with the lowest expenses. Time off for family doesn't jive well with that. On top of all that, some psychologist with a degree from Internet Tech decided that only a child's parents should be responsible for that child. Children and families are not viewed as a responsibility or an asset of society. So parents have no helpful social support network. Sure, grandparents help out and siblings help out. But that's not the same as having a social system geared toward children. It's just extending the idea that families have to make it on their own. I can't think of anyone that would be comfortable with their child being punished by a neighbor for doing something unacceptable. You know, lighting cats on fire or masturbating in public. Kid things.
But history has shown us that families generally don't raise kids on their own. It's a recent phenomenon. We no longer send kids to boarding school. We trust our televisions but not our neighbors to teach kids. We don't give them meaningful work that adds to the family or community. Instead, we tell them they're too young to do things, we coddle them from reality, and we teach them to distrust everyone. Then they go all Menendez.
The crux of the matter is this: America professes to believe in child rearing but we don't respect parents or families. We scoff at people who would rather spend time with their family than earn money. We disrespect the women and men that work so hard to balance their expected family roles with full time jobs. We look down on women that work hard to provide their family with money and on men that would like to be fathers.
Anybody that believes the current economic and social system is family friendly and people "just aren't trying hard enough" can walk in front of a bus. If we want people to be more involved with their families (and by extension communities) we really need to rethink our priorities. Personally, I'd rather be with my family than some fat slob at the office who wants to discuss the latest world shattering development on American Idol.
And for the last time, those weren't mermaids, they were salmon!
I was having a debate today about parenthood. Apparently, I'm appallingly awful on the question of "family values". So here is my argument:
America, particularly the governmental, media, and religious aspects, love to discuss how the breakdown of families is happening at an alarming rate and what we can do to stop it. I'm referring specifically to parents raising children and spending time with them. I guess that is the great goal of man - get married, pump out a few babies, then die before you become a drain on social services. Why is this the almighty American dream? Because some douche bag with a big pointy hat said so.
Back to the point. We don't really believe in child rearing. The economic and social system in this country is not structured to nurture parental care of children. A family of four cannot easily survive on one paycheck, especially for lower income families. So both parents have to work. Next, corporate life is not arranged around time for baseball games, school plays, and homework. It's about maximizing employee work with the lowest expenses. Time off for family doesn't jive well with that. On top of all that, some psychologist with a degree from Internet Tech decided that only a child's parents should be responsible for that child. Children and families are not viewed as a responsibility or an asset of society. So parents have no helpful social support network. Sure, grandparents help out and siblings help out. But that's not the same as having a social system geared toward children. It's just extending the idea that families have to make it on their own. I can't think of anyone that would be comfortable with their child being punished by a neighbor for doing something unacceptable. You know, lighting cats on fire or masturbating in public. Kid things.
But history has shown us that families generally don't raise kids on their own. It's a recent phenomenon. We no longer send kids to boarding school. We trust our televisions but not our neighbors to teach kids. We don't give them meaningful work that adds to the family or community. Instead, we tell them they're too young to do things, we coddle them from reality, and we teach them to distrust everyone. Then they go all Menendez.
The crux of the matter is this: America professes to believe in child rearing but we don't respect parents or families. We scoff at people who would rather spend time with their family than earn money. We disrespect the women and men that work so hard to balance their expected family roles with full time jobs. We look down on women that work hard to provide their family with money and on men that would like to be fathers.
Anybody that believes the current economic and social system is family friendly and people "just aren't trying hard enough" can walk in front of a bus. If we want people to be more involved with their families (and by extension communities) we really need to rethink our priorities. Personally, I'd rather be with my family than some fat slob at the office who wants to discuss the latest world shattering development on American Idol.
And for the last time, those weren't mermaids, they were salmon!
Saturday, November 10, 2007
If it walks, talks, and acts like a crook....
Welcome again to my pretentious section of cyberspace. I'm now officially 27. According to my wife I'm old. According to me I'm awesome. Maybe we should take a vote. We are a republic after all.
I want everyone to go out and read a book called The Final Days. It's a thick, poorly written, badly time-shifting, confusing, but incredibly detailed tome by Woodward and Bernstein (if you don't know who they are, I invite you to look them up) about the last months of the Nixon administration.
The reason I want you to read it is this: the incredible parallels between the Nixon government and every administration since (and many before). The amount of illegal, questionably legal, and down-right unethical actions that are accepted as standard practice in government is truly incredible and appalling. The fact that domestic wire-tapping and spying has been going on for more than 60 years has apparently been forgotten in the current debacle. Apparently, if it's kept secret, the public doesn't care. Once it's out in the open, we complain a little and then go back to accepting it. It's incredible to me that a man who obviously had great respect (I use that term liberally) for the executive office could be such a terrible representative of it.
To me, it's more than the fact that the commander-in-chief does illegal things. It's that they lie about their actions. They cover them up. Then they blame others. Or worse, they lump their actions under the catch-all term "national security". Please people...I'm begging you. Please realize that this term is utter bullshit. Should you keep your military strength and position secret? Sure. Should you be selective about what allies you share intelligence with? Yes. But for actions that are patently unconstitutional and unethical, whether domestic or foreign, national security is NEVER an acceptable excuse. And that's all it is. An excuse. National security has come to mean "in the interest of the government" not the national interest. You cannot live in a democratic republic (sorry folks...stop using the word democracy since that's not what we live in) if the government is keeping secrets directly related to keeping it in power. That's nothing better than glorified despotism.
Anyway, I recommend the book. It's a fantastic look into how far removed the government is from what its supposed to be according to our own rules for government. It's an incredible view into the minds of federal lawyers who justify illegal actions by claiming "executive privilege". It makes you wonder how much we don't know. And how much of that knowledge could be used to make this country and world a better place.
I end with this. Some powers have been handed to the federal government. The states and, by implication, the people of those states, have given the government authority over money, military, foreign, and some domestic policies. That's the whole point- to have a central body that handles things so each individual state doesn't have to. But all of those things were designed with oversight, including congressional, judicial, and civilian. The most important is civilian, since we entrusted these people to represent us. I think it's obvious we can't rely on congressional or judicial oversight, since those branches are just as bad as the executive (witness the court rulings about the 2000 election, rulings on the patriot act, the lack of congressional oversight of the war, and Congress' own poor record of ethical behavior). We the public have not been doing a very good job. It's time we stepped up our policing of the government. If they truly work for us, then they have to answer to us. It's idealism in the extreme, but you have to ask for the galaxy just to get a star.
I want everyone to go out and read a book called The Final Days. It's a thick, poorly written, badly time-shifting, confusing, but incredibly detailed tome by Woodward and Bernstein (if you don't know who they are, I invite you to look them up) about the last months of the Nixon administration.
The reason I want you to read it is this: the incredible parallels between the Nixon government and every administration since (and many before). The amount of illegal, questionably legal, and down-right unethical actions that are accepted as standard practice in government is truly incredible and appalling. The fact that domestic wire-tapping and spying has been going on for more than 60 years has apparently been forgotten in the current debacle. Apparently, if it's kept secret, the public doesn't care. Once it's out in the open, we complain a little and then go back to accepting it. It's incredible to me that a man who obviously had great respect (I use that term liberally) for the executive office could be such a terrible representative of it.
To me, it's more than the fact that the commander-in-chief does illegal things. It's that they lie about their actions. They cover them up. Then they blame others. Or worse, they lump their actions under the catch-all term "national security". Please people...I'm begging you. Please realize that this term is utter bullshit. Should you keep your military strength and position secret? Sure. Should you be selective about what allies you share intelligence with? Yes. But for actions that are patently unconstitutional and unethical, whether domestic or foreign, national security is NEVER an acceptable excuse. And that's all it is. An excuse. National security has come to mean "in the interest of the government" not the national interest. You cannot live in a democratic republic (sorry folks...stop using the word democracy since that's not what we live in) if the government is keeping secrets directly related to keeping it in power. That's nothing better than glorified despotism.
Anyway, I recommend the book. It's a fantastic look into how far removed the government is from what its supposed to be according to our own rules for government. It's an incredible view into the minds of federal lawyers who justify illegal actions by claiming "executive privilege". It makes you wonder how much we don't know. And how much of that knowledge could be used to make this country and world a better place.
I end with this. Some powers have been handed to the federal government. The states and, by implication, the people of those states, have given the government authority over money, military, foreign, and some domestic policies. That's the whole point- to have a central body that handles things so each individual state doesn't have to. But all of those things were designed with oversight, including congressional, judicial, and civilian. The most important is civilian, since we entrusted these people to represent us. I think it's obvious we can't rely on congressional or judicial oversight, since those branches are just as bad as the executive (witness the court rulings about the 2000 election, rulings on the patriot act, the lack of congressional oversight of the war, and Congress' own poor record of ethical behavior). We the public have not been doing a very good job. It's time we stepped up our policing of the government. If they truly work for us, then they have to answer to us. It's idealism in the extreme, but you have to ask for the galaxy just to get a star.
Tuesday, November 6, 2007
What's with all the golf?
Hi all. It's been more than a week with no update. I've been busy dealing with my dissertation, my new job, my old job, and the blow job (not in a good way) that is Microsoft. My XBOX 360 died AGAIN. Error message: "hardware failure". Microsoft, you can eat a dick. I'm tired of the bull crap. You know there's a problem with your hardware. Fix it. I've already decided that once I get set up in WA, I'm moving to Linux and dropping Windows. Hopefully I can still use my science programs. If not, I'll install a Windows emulator. If this crap continues with the XBOX, I'm forcing them to give me a refund and I'll move on to the Wii, which had hardware problems but Nintendo fessed up and fixed them. I'm done with M$.
Now to more important things than my operating system. I was in class today and we were discussing the impacts of a warming atmosphere on the hydrologic cycle (that's water cycle for those less scientifically inclined). And I thought, what the fuck is wrong with people? The eleventy billion people living in southern CA live in a desert. Not a true desert, but close enough to not split hairs. Why are they always surprised when water runs short and shit burns down? I've concluded that humans are retarded. Just because we have the ABILITY to reshape an area and make it habitable for millions of people doesn't mean we SHOULD. Only humans could be so arrogant and ignorant as to waltz into an area with limited water supplies and lay down acre upon acre of golf courses, water parks, manicured lawns, and swimming pools. Whoever came up with that plan should be horse whipped.
We've moved whole rivers. Los Angeles has stolen (that's right, STOLEN) water from the Owen's Valley, the Colorado, and northern CA. And we still demand more. Meanwhile, we're dumping the worst quality water you can imagine, salty water even a shark wouldn't piss in, onto some of the most fertile soil in Mexico. That water was clean and productive until we got hold of it. Now it's just another by product of progress and agribusiness. Of course, water everywhere is being ruined. But it's just the worst stupidity to do it in an area that already has little water to begin with.
Oh...and congratulations to Rafael. I found out at 6:30 PM yesterday that he died. And at 10:15 PM I learned that he wasn't dead. So good for him. Any day you don't die is a good day.
Now to more important things than my operating system. I was in class today and we were discussing the impacts of a warming atmosphere on the hydrologic cycle (that's water cycle for those less scientifically inclined). And I thought, what the fuck is wrong with people? The eleventy billion people living in southern CA live in a desert. Not a true desert, but close enough to not split hairs. Why are they always surprised when water runs short and shit burns down? I've concluded that humans are retarded. Just because we have the ABILITY to reshape an area and make it habitable for millions of people doesn't mean we SHOULD. Only humans could be so arrogant and ignorant as to waltz into an area with limited water supplies and lay down acre upon acre of golf courses, water parks, manicured lawns, and swimming pools. Whoever came up with that plan should be horse whipped.
We've moved whole rivers. Los Angeles has stolen (that's right, STOLEN) water from the Owen's Valley, the Colorado, and northern CA. And we still demand more. Meanwhile, we're dumping the worst quality water you can imagine, salty water even a shark wouldn't piss in, onto some of the most fertile soil in Mexico. That water was clean and productive until we got hold of it. Now it's just another by product of progress and agribusiness. Of course, water everywhere is being ruined. But it's just the worst stupidity to do it in an area that already has little water to begin with.
Oh...and congratulations to Rafael. I found out at 6:30 PM yesterday that he died. And at 10:15 PM I learned that he wasn't dead. So good for him. Any day you don't die is a good day.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)