Why don't we call things what they are? The Planned Parenthood clinics have commercials that say "practice safe love". What they mean is: practice safe SEX. The aisles at the front of the store are for conveniences. What they mean is: impulse section. The government calls it a preemptive strike to implement a regime change. Translation: we shoot first and install a government more to our liking. Apparently all American men need to take drugs for natural male enhancement. Meaning: your dick is too small and you need a penis enlargement. Gay couples can't get married. Translation: gay love is less meaningful and sacred, so we'll give you a different word that (theoretically) means exactly the same thing. I could go on.
The point is that this country has an incredible phobia with language. It's social censoring. After it becomes acceptable to obscure basic human actions like sex behind euphemisms, the situation can only escalate. In the worst cases, we're telling immigrants that they are not entitled to keep their own language if they want to live here. The land of the free and the country that said "bring us your tired, your poor, your huddled masses..." is actually offended at the idea of making road signs in multiple languages. Tribes and ethnicities around the world often define themselves based on their language. But fear of change or "dilution of language" only breeds more fear. And fear leads to violence.
Language can be used to preach hate or tolerance, to obscure or enlighten, to help or hinder. But words only have the power you give them. If you don't give them power, then all words are neutral and abstract constructions. People give far too much emotional power to words. They become attached to the emotional connotations and that nearly always leads to fear when someone else attaches a different connotation to the same word. Fear of certain "profane words" (which, if you study the history of the word profane and the idea of profanity does NOT refer to curse words). Fear of using certain words to refer to things (it's not sex, it's love). The fear that teaching kids the correct terminology for body parts will lead them into sexual revolt. Certain words were given a negative stigma through disgraceful actions: nigger, Nazi, kike. Should we ban these words altogether? Hell no. If you do, you bury the atrocities that created them. But you can't be afraid of them.
Language is not static. It's a fluid entity. It can be beautiful or terrifying. But it's always moving. That's why it's difficult to rely on words written lifetimes ago: the Constitution (written 200 hundred years ago when the ideas and concepts and even words meant different things) and the bible (written 2000 years years ago and then heavily translated) being two good examples. The meaning we give these words and ideas is not necessarily what they meant to the people that wrote them. That doesn't mean our interpretation is bad or even wrong. It just means that people should be open to differences in interpretation. Anyone who thinks they know the exact meaning of words written centuries before by someone else is full of back-side excrement. That's shit for those of you that want the simple version. I'm not saying there's nothing to learn from long dead authors. There are thousands of works that speak to the human condition today just as they did when they were penned. I'm just saying that we need to be careful in how we interpret "their" meaning versus OUR meaning.
Call things what they are. If we ever want to consider ourselves "enlightened" relative to anything, we have to get rid of our fear of words. We have to stop hiding behind language and semantics. We have to face reality. "Practicing safe love" isn't facing the issue of STDs and unprepared pregnancies. Practicing safe sex is.
Friday, May 30, 2008
Saturday, May 24, 2008
I can't keep up...I've got li'l legs
I'm not sure what "amateur historian" means. It's often appended to authors that write books that include good historical under-pinnings but may not be about history itself. Whatever it means, it should stop. It's condescending to people that work hard to understand and appreciate history without being a "historian".
On a side-note, I'm thinking of starting a science blog. Nothing technical. Just something that will address common misconceptions about some topics (climate, evolution, nano-technology, etc.) and point out interesting tidbits. Everything from astronomy to zoology that is interesting but may not make headlines. I think the first topic might be "why it's probably ok to re-freeze thawed out chicken". If there is anything you'd like to see or have questions about, let me know. It would be even better if it was a question-and-answer type of deal. But that would imply that enough people are reading this to keep the questions coming. Plus, you probably have better things to do than spend more time in my corner of the internets.
I've been reading a grip of books on foreign aid, foreign poverty, and the flow of money from rich to poor countries. The excellent comments on my last post got me thinking about a recurring theme in these books: change and progress in republican governments are made incrementally and piecemeal, with debate amongst people with vastly different ideas on how to approach and solve problems. As Jack and Adam astutely pointed out, even the founding fathers were at odds on the best way to govern this country. Changes to our way of governing, our economy, and our social setting have usually happened slowly. It's a trial and error situation. If you look at most Western democracies you'll see a similar story. These two ideas (incremental change and legitimate dissent/debate) are cornerstones of why our political system works well. But we don't apply these same ideas to other governments or situations.
Here's an example: whether you agree with it or not, the fact is that we invaded Iraq, ripped up its governing structures and institutions, and insinuated ourselves into an area that has sharp ethnic conflicts. Rather than making incremental changes and finding solutions to these problems within the local economic, political, and social setting, we have pushed for one massive, over-night, over-arching shift from autocracy and dictatorship to free markets and democratic elections. This is simply not a reasonable expectation. The American people expect to see movement in Iraq away from conflict and toward things promised before the war (democracy, elections, capitalism, etc.) But David Petraeus and Ryan Crocker can't deliver news that Americans see as progress. (They also don't answer straight forward questions, but that's a different problem). And the reason they can't deliver that news is because we're expecting Shakespeare and getting Grisham. We have high expectations, but those expectations are not based on any real-world model or any previous success using this method of creating overnight sensations (Zappa rules!).
The way forward is never certain and everyone wants to see different outcomes. Some people even want to go backward. I'd like to think the U.S. can learn from its successes as well as its failures. We're resourceful people. This is a great opportunity to be relatively successful in a zero-sum situation. Just because it's not success the way we wanted to measure it (with generic metrics like democracy, free markets, end of major combat, etc.) doesn't mean it's not worth trying. Incremental changes add up over time. If we ever want to consider what happened in Iraq a "success", we have to give them the tools to be successful during the difficult transition to a new way of governing and interacting both inside the country and internationally. One of those tools is the freedom and ability to adapt things to their unique situation and another is the freedom to try things that fail. We can't implement an over-arching U.S. blueprint for Iraq. It didn't work in Vietnam, it didn't work in Haiti, it didn't work in Iran, and there's no reason to think it will work in Iraq.
On a side-note, I'm thinking of starting a science blog. Nothing technical. Just something that will address common misconceptions about some topics (climate, evolution, nano-technology, etc.) and point out interesting tidbits. Everything from astronomy to zoology that is interesting but may not make headlines. I think the first topic might be "why it's probably ok to re-freeze thawed out chicken". If there is anything you'd like to see or have questions about, let me know. It would be even better if it was a question-and-answer type of deal. But that would imply that enough people are reading this to keep the questions coming. Plus, you probably have better things to do than spend more time in my corner of the internets.
I've been reading a grip of books on foreign aid, foreign poverty, and the flow of money from rich to poor countries. The excellent comments on my last post got me thinking about a recurring theme in these books: change and progress in republican governments are made incrementally and piecemeal, with debate amongst people with vastly different ideas on how to approach and solve problems. As Jack and Adam astutely pointed out, even the founding fathers were at odds on the best way to govern this country. Changes to our way of governing, our economy, and our social setting have usually happened slowly. It's a trial and error situation. If you look at most Western democracies you'll see a similar story. These two ideas (incremental change and legitimate dissent/debate) are cornerstones of why our political system works well. But we don't apply these same ideas to other governments or situations.
Here's an example: whether you agree with it or not, the fact is that we invaded Iraq, ripped up its governing structures and institutions, and insinuated ourselves into an area that has sharp ethnic conflicts. Rather than making incremental changes and finding solutions to these problems within the local economic, political, and social setting, we have pushed for one massive, over-night, over-arching shift from autocracy and dictatorship to free markets and democratic elections. This is simply not a reasonable expectation. The American people expect to see movement in Iraq away from conflict and toward things promised before the war (democracy, elections, capitalism, etc.) But David Petraeus and Ryan Crocker can't deliver news that Americans see as progress. (They also don't answer straight forward questions, but that's a different problem). And the reason they can't deliver that news is because we're expecting Shakespeare and getting Grisham. We have high expectations, but those expectations are not based on any real-world model or any previous success using this method of creating overnight sensations (Zappa rules!).
The way forward is never certain and everyone wants to see different outcomes. Some people even want to go backward. I'd like to think the U.S. can learn from its successes as well as its failures. We're resourceful people. This is a great opportunity to be relatively successful in a zero-sum situation. Just because it's not success the way we wanted to measure it (with generic metrics like democracy, free markets, end of major combat, etc.) doesn't mean it's not worth trying. Incremental changes add up over time. If we ever want to consider what happened in Iraq a "success", we have to give them the tools to be successful during the difficult transition to a new way of governing and interacting both inside the country and internationally. One of those tools is the freedom and ability to adapt things to their unique situation and another is the freedom to try things that fail. We can't implement an over-arching U.S. blueprint for Iraq. It didn't work in Vietnam, it didn't work in Haiti, it didn't work in Iran, and there's no reason to think it will work in Iraq.
Tuesday, May 20, 2008
Apparently it's only free speech when you agree with what they're saying
I’ve spent a lot of time ragging on the conservative cause in this country. It’s one of those instances when I lump too many people into one group for simplicity, even though you and I are well aware that not all conservatives have the same view points on all issues. And no one is conservative on all things. Some of my best friends are conservative, and I couldn’t care less. So today, just for you, I’m going to rag on the liberals for a bit, particularly old Joe Lieberman.
Lieberman has demanded that Google and YouTube remove videos posted by “Islamic radicals”. That’s a very general label. Who gets to define which Islamic people are “normal” and which are “radical”? Who gets to pick which groups are not acceptable and which Islamic groups are? Needless to say, it’s not you or I.
Google already attempts to remove videos that advocate violence or are considered “hate speech”. These go against their published policies. So violent videos made by these groups are already being banned and hate-speech is also banned. What’s left? That would be videos that advocate anti-Western sentiment without advocating violence. Last time I checked, these fell under the umbrella of free speech. What we have here is a senator who is actively asking for censorship and a violation of the first amendment. Meanwhile, the liberal and independent members of government are lambasting Bush and his administration for doing EXACTLY THE SAME THING. Liberals are upset that Bush is censoring military blogging and communications and blocking access to legal representation for “suspected terrorists”. Yet here they want the same thing. Until the day I die, I will never understand how you can take the “moral high ground” (disgusting word, moral, but appropriate here) by asking others to stop doing something that you are actively doing. Do you not see the stupidity and hypocrisy in that?
Just because you don’t like what other people have to say doesn’t mean they shouldn’t be allowed to say it. And who knows. Maybe you can learn something by listening to what other people think and understanding how they got to that thought. Witch hunts have never worked. The Inquisition? The Red Scare? The Gestapo? They were all about the same thing: control. None of them worked. All they did was make people miserable.
One of the major themes of the upcoming presidential election is change. The Democrats think they have the change the public wants, the Republicans think they do. But based on examples like this, neither side is offering any change. It’s more status quo. This is only one example, of course, but you can easily find others. Read some headlines. Just don’t do it on CNN or Fox News.
Kudos to Google for telling Lieberman and his staff where they can stick their request.
Lieberman has demanded that Google and YouTube remove videos posted by “Islamic radicals”. That’s a very general label. Who gets to define which Islamic people are “normal” and which are “radical”? Who gets to pick which groups are not acceptable and which Islamic groups are? Needless to say, it’s not you or I.
Google already attempts to remove videos that advocate violence or are considered “hate speech”. These go against their published policies. So violent videos made by these groups are already being banned and hate-speech is also banned. What’s left? That would be videos that advocate anti-Western sentiment without advocating violence. Last time I checked, these fell under the umbrella of free speech. What we have here is a senator who is actively asking for censorship and a violation of the first amendment. Meanwhile, the liberal and independent members of government are lambasting Bush and his administration for doing EXACTLY THE SAME THING. Liberals are upset that Bush is censoring military blogging and communications and blocking access to legal representation for “suspected terrorists”. Yet here they want the same thing. Until the day I die, I will never understand how you can take the “moral high ground” (disgusting word, moral, but appropriate here) by asking others to stop doing something that you are actively doing. Do you not see the stupidity and hypocrisy in that?
Just because you don’t like what other people have to say doesn’t mean they shouldn’t be allowed to say it. And who knows. Maybe you can learn something by listening to what other people think and understanding how they got to that thought. Witch hunts have never worked. The Inquisition? The Red Scare? The Gestapo? They were all about the same thing: control. None of them worked. All they did was make people miserable.
One of the major themes of the upcoming presidential election is change. The Democrats think they have the change the public wants, the Republicans think they do. But based on examples like this, neither side is offering any change. It’s more status quo. This is only one example, of course, but you can easily find others. Read some headlines. Just don’t do it on CNN or Fox News.
Kudos to Google for telling Lieberman and his staff where they can stick their request.
Thursday, May 15, 2008
I hate to burst your bubble,
but I'm glad gas prices are going up. I'm probably the only one. Don't get me wrong, it hits my wallet too and I always dread the sight of dollars ticking off on the pump that could be used to buy a house. But I'm glad. It's the only way to convince people that the current situation is untenable. If it costs you $100 or more to fill up your car, you'd better have a good reason. Unless you're a contractor or a construction worker or otherwise regularly haul large loads of heavy objects, you don't need an F350. Hell, most people don't need an F150. And unless you have 16 tricycle motors (which is 16 too many anyway), you don't need a Suburban or a decked out van with DVD players. I cringe when I think of all the resources wasted on muscle cars and raised trucks. And that's just today. How many years of gas have been pumped into the air over the years that was totally and completely unnecessary?
The next person that complains to me about $4 gas while holding a Starbucks cup in one hand, bottled water in the other, and wearing $200 Timberland boots is going to get a royal fucking beat down and a vociferous tongue lashing. You're willing to shill out $4 or more for a cup of joe, buy water (fucking water!) for $2 when it comes out of the tap practically free, and throw down a day or two worth of income for a pair of shoes and you want to complain about gas? Get real. Better yet, get bent. This is the same kind of logic that tells Washington they can run a $4 trillion dollar debt, a $1 trillion dollar war, and $600 billion in trade deficits and STILL cut taxes.
Let's be blunt: it's our own fault gas prices are high. In the 70's and 80's, we could blame it on the Saudi's and get away with it. Now we have no one left to point to. Here are just a few reasons: unrealistic oil and gas subsidies for the energy companies, completely wasteful behavior on the part of consumers, designing cities and places of business around personal transport instead of public transport, refusing to increase fuel economy standards for decades at a time, and creating political situations that cut into supplies (i.e. fucking with suppliers in the Middle East, Africa, and Central America). So it's time to stop playing the victim and decide how to deal with the situation. Lawsuits, windfall taxes, increasing production, and asking nicely are not acceptable answers. Corn-based ethanol, corn-based methanol, and hydrogen are also unacceptable. I suggest starting by taking on some of the problems above- in this case, addressing the roots of the problem instead of slapping bandages on it.
Let's be clear about one other thing: we're not even paying the true cost of our gas. The price of gas doesn't include the costs of environmental decimation, environmental remediation, long term effects of pollution from both mining and consumption, or the millions of human and animal lives lost to searching, mining, and warring for it.
So don't come bitching to me about high gas prices. Especially if you can still afford gas. The wealthy and middle class are still filling up their Suburbans, RVs, or "personal water craft" (the popular but retarded euphemism for jet skis). The people at the bottom of the ladder are the ones that at least some claim to a right to complain. The rest of you enjoy your Starbucks. I'm off to read the court decision today legalizing gay marriage in CA. It's about time at least one court pulled its head out of its ass. I just have to figure out why the vote was 4-3. What the hell is wrong with the three people that voted no? I'll have more to say after I've boned up (pun definitely intended) on the case. Cheers!
The next person that complains to me about $4 gas while holding a Starbucks cup in one hand, bottled water in the other, and wearing $200 Timberland boots is going to get a royal fucking beat down and a vociferous tongue lashing. You're willing to shill out $4 or more for a cup of joe, buy water (fucking water!) for $2 when it comes out of the tap practically free, and throw down a day or two worth of income for a pair of shoes and you want to complain about gas? Get real. Better yet, get bent. This is the same kind of logic that tells Washington they can run a $4 trillion dollar debt, a $1 trillion dollar war, and $600 billion in trade deficits and STILL cut taxes.
Let's be blunt: it's our own fault gas prices are high. In the 70's and 80's, we could blame it on the Saudi's and get away with it. Now we have no one left to point to. Here are just a few reasons: unrealistic oil and gas subsidies for the energy companies, completely wasteful behavior on the part of consumers, designing cities and places of business around personal transport instead of public transport, refusing to increase fuel economy standards for decades at a time, and creating political situations that cut into supplies (i.e. fucking with suppliers in the Middle East, Africa, and Central America). So it's time to stop playing the victim and decide how to deal with the situation. Lawsuits, windfall taxes, increasing production, and asking nicely are not acceptable answers. Corn-based ethanol, corn-based methanol, and hydrogen are also unacceptable. I suggest starting by taking on some of the problems above- in this case, addressing the roots of the problem instead of slapping bandages on it.
Let's be clear about one other thing: we're not even paying the true cost of our gas. The price of gas doesn't include the costs of environmental decimation, environmental remediation, long term effects of pollution from both mining and consumption, or the millions of human and animal lives lost to searching, mining, and warring for it.
So don't come bitching to me about high gas prices. Especially if you can still afford gas. The wealthy and middle class are still filling up their Suburbans, RVs, or "personal water craft" (the popular but retarded euphemism for jet skis). The people at the bottom of the ladder are the ones that at least some claim to a right to complain. The rest of you enjoy your Starbucks. I'm off to read the court decision today legalizing gay marriage in CA. It's about time at least one court pulled its head out of its ass. I just have to figure out why the vote was 4-3. What the hell is wrong with the three people that voted no? I'll have more to say after I've boned up (pun definitely intended) on the case. Cheers!
Friday, May 9, 2008
If only history class taught history
I read an article today about a poll showing people with conservative philosophies are 'happier' than people with liberal philosophies. That’s not surprising since several independent polls have found the same thing. What struck me were people’s responses. Among the usual flame wars between conservatives yelling “get a job” and liberals yelling “look beyond your wallet” was buried this gem from Terry in N.C.: “Liberals are always looking for something for nothing, to support these liberals you have to have a lot of money for them and many government programs to assist them. On the other hand conservatives work hard and are not always looking for hand outs. Conservatives make more out of less to get by.”
This is easily the most ignorant thing I read today. It’s wrong on so many levels, I don’t know where to start. But here’s the old college try:
Research dating back to the late 1800’s and the beginning of industrialization in this country consistently shows that people want to work and have productive jobs. It’s part of the human need to be productive and it’s part of the philosophy of our country- “work hard and you can move up the social and economic scale.” Few people want handouts or the stigma that comes with them. And few people want to feel like they are unproductive and useless.
In regards to government programs that assist liberals, here’s someone that doesn’t know her own country’s history or current economics. The federal government has been subsidizing this nation practically since its inception. The entire American west was built on federally subsidized water. The mid-west was founded by farmers on federally subsidized land. The entire energy, communications, and banking industries are founded on principles of heavy government payouts and tax breaks. Look at the airlines, the saving and loans that survived the shake-up in the 1980’s, and the current lending and credit debacle and tell me with a straight face the government is not giving out handouts. What Miss Terry is saying is that it’s ok for government to subsidize COMMERCIAL interests, but NOT human or social interests.
Finally, she claims that conservatives always work hard and make more out of less. But history has shown that the conservative interests are the ones receiving the majority of those massive government subsidies and tax breaks. The companies and industries receiving these handouts are owned by (predominantly) rich, white, conservative businessmen. It’s their pockets that are being lined with government cheese. Based on just these few examples, it seems to me that conservatives have no basis for claiming that it’s only liberals looking for hand-outs. Right now, as I type this (at noon during lunch), conservative interest groups are pushing legislation through Congress that will, in essence, give them massive subsidies and payouts to protect “intellectual property” and crack down on piracy of movies and music. They are trying (quite successfully) to force the government and taxpayers to pay for these anti-piracy measures rather than putting up their own capital. How’s that for a handout Terry?
This isn’t meant to be an indictment of conservatives. I happen to agree that people should work hard should not expect handouts. But I also believe that people should be compensated fairly for their work and that they should have the same access to government help as anyone else. No one should have to work two or three jobs and still not have any savings because their money is being soaked up by health insurance companies (subsidized), groceries (from subsidized farms), transportation (oil and gas subsidies), cell phones (subsidized), etc. Why should the government not help out its people by providing them a helping hand? If interest groups, businesses, and Wall Street can get help, why not the people that clean up after them?
Terry’s response is nothing more than rhetoric spouted by people that watch too much Hannity and Colmes. It shows a clear lack of understanding of people in general (who want to work), “conservatives” in particular (who are busy getting many of the handouts they so desperately deplore- particularly when they go to someone else), and the federal government (which in some way gives hand-outs to nearly every industry in this country). The major problem is that people (liberals and conservatives) won’t take the time to look at what is happening or to understand the way their own country works. They would rather throw insults at each other and blame the other side. In the end, both sides are to blame and both sides are needed to craft a solution.
This is easily the most ignorant thing I read today. It’s wrong on so many levels, I don’t know where to start. But here’s the old college try:
Research dating back to the late 1800’s and the beginning of industrialization in this country consistently shows that people want to work and have productive jobs. It’s part of the human need to be productive and it’s part of the philosophy of our country- “work hard and you can move up the social and economic scale.” Few people want handouts or the stigma that comes with them. And few people want to feel like they are unproductive and useless.
In regards to government programs that assist liberals, here’s someone that doesn’t know her own country’s history or current economics. The federal government has been subsidizing this nation practically since its inception. The entire American west was built on federally subsidized water. The mid-west was founded by farmers on federally subsidized land. The entire energy, communications, and banking industries are founded on principles of heavy government payouts and tax breaks. Look at the airlines, the saving and loans that survived the shake-up in the 1980’s, and the current lending and credit debacle and tell me with a straight face the government is not giving out handouts. What Miss Terry is saying is that it’s ok for government to subsidize COMMERCIAL interests, but NOT human or social interests.
Finally, she claims that conservatives always work hard and make more out of less. But history has shown that the conservative interests are the ones receiving the majority of those massive government subsidies and tax breaks. The companies and industries receiving these handouts are owned by (predominantly) rich, white, conservative businessmen. It’s their pockets that are being lined with government cheese. Based on just these few examples, it seems to me that conservatives have no basis for claiming that it’s only liberals looking for hand-outs. Right now, as I type this (at noon during lunch), conservative interest groups are pushing legislation through Congress that will, in essence, give them massive subsidies and payouts to protect “intellectual property” and crack down on piracy of movies and music. They are trying (quite successfully) to force the government and taxpayers to pay for these anti-piracy measures rather than putting up their own capital. How’s that for a handout Terry?
This isn’t meant to be an indictment of conservatives. I happen to agree that people should work hard should not expect handouts. But I also believe that people should be compensated fairly for their work and that they should have the same access to government help as anyone else. No one should have to work two or three jobs and still not have any savings because their money is being soaked up by health insurance companies (subsidized), groceries (from subsidized farms), transportation (oil and gas subsidies), cell phones (subsidized), etc. Why should the government not help out its people by providing them a helping hand? If interest groups, businesses, and Wall Street can get help, why not the people that clean up after them?
Terry’s response is nothing more than rhetoric spouted by people that watch too much Hannity and Colmes. It shows a clear lack of understanding of people in general (who want to work), “conservatives” in particular (who are busy getting many of the handouts they so desperately deplore- particularly when they go to someone else), and the federal government (which in some way gives hand-outs to nearly every industry in this country). The major problem is that people (liberals and conservatives) won’t take the time to look at what is happening or to understand the way their own country works. They would rather throw insults at each other and blame the other side. In the end, both sides are to blame and both sides are needed to craft a solution.
Thursday, May 8, 2008
An Open Letter
to the guy that ran my ass over in the carpool lane today. Let me say here that I hope you die in a fire, preferably slowly so you have time to think about all the stupid things you did to deserve it. I also hope that if you breed you'll do the world a favor and not raise the kid. You're the reason people commit suicide and shoot up malls- they can't stand dealing with you every day they have to go outside.
The carpool lane is a lane for people that actually carpool. That means two or more people. Not yourself and your hand. I know you're lonely and dysfunctional and your hand is the only thing that will ever love you, but your hand does not count as a friend. I know you think you're sneaky getting out of the carpool lane when there's a cop. You are not. You're just a dick. Not a ninja.
The carpool lane is still bound to the other rules of the road. It's not a make-your-own-speed lane and it's not a tailgating-is-appropriate lane. Since you can't drive with any decency in a regular lane, let's not complicate things by driving in a carpool lane where you have to be extra alert for douche-bags (like yourself) jumping in at inappropriate times and slowing down in order to get back into traffic to make an exit.
Apparently, you can only think about one thing at a time. And since that one thing is yourself and not the rest of the people on the road, maybe you should sit this one out. You must be vital to the human species. It must be nice to be you.
And tonight when you head home don't forget to cut off a school bus full of kids and run a bunch of red lights because you need to be home two minutes earlier. Do the world a favor and choke on your microwave dinner.
Sincerely,
The Management
The carpool lane is a lane for people that actually carpool. That means two or more people. Not yourself and your hand. I know you're lonely and dysfunctional and your hand is the only thing that will ever love you, but your hand does not count as a friend. I know you think you're sneaky getting out of the carpool lane when there's a cop. You are not. You're just a dick. Not a ninja.
The carpool lane is still bound to the other rules of the road. It's not a make-your-own-speed lane and it's not a tailgating-is-appropriate lane. Since you can't drive with any decency in a regular lane, let's not complicate things by driving in a carpool lane where you have to be extra alert for douche-bags (like yourself) jumping in at inappropriate times and slowing down in order to get back into traffic to make an exit.
Apparently, you can only think about one thing at a time. And since that one thing is yourself and not the rest of the people on the road, maybe you should sit this one out. You must be vital to the human species. It must be nice to be you.
And tonight when you head home don't forget to cut off a school bus full of kids and run a bunch of red lights because you need to be home two minutes earlier. Do the world a favor and choke on your microwave dinner.
Sincerely,
The Management
Tuesday, May 6, 2008
This is what I'm talking about
Long time no write. Along with not being a fat pig, being productive at work, and not getting beat down at Facebook chess, my goal is to actually update this thing more regularly. I need to write more and watch tv less. Speaking of which, one of my poems was selected for the literary journal at UWB. Not the greatest accolade, but odds are I'm the only scientist and one of the few freelancers that isn't an English major. So I'm pretty happy about it. Since putting poems on a blog technically counts as published, I can't really put them up here if I want to get them in magazines or journals. So I'll start putting up song lyrics instead. Stay tuned if you care.
As you know, I love to find things that are inconsistent with other things. It's part of being a scientist and a nitpicker. So here's a good one. Congress is busily passing a bill, blessed by your good friend and mine George W., that would make it illegal for American companies (namely Google, Yahoo, and the like) to aid internet censorship in foreign countries (namely China, Korea, and the like). Are you fucking kidding me? Bush is busy refusing every FOIA (that's Freedom of Information Act) request this side of Pyrenees, is actively appointing FCC and FTC cronies that want to kill net neutrality, is asking for protection for American phone companies that illegally spied on Americans, and has not taken a stance against the fact that American internet companies are actively censoring our own internet (ahem...Comcast..I'm looking at you). And now, once again, our "leaders" have climbed up on their high horses and decided to tell the rest of the world (via our search engines) what they should and should not be allowed to do. In this case, what they should or shouldn't see on their internet.
I'm no fan of the kind of internet censorship practiced in China or North Korea or any other country. But I'm more incensed by the fact that our own internet is being censored and spied on yet we still want to tell other governments not to do the same thing. The last time I checked, China's government was the one that got to decide what Chinese citizens can and can't do, not ours. When the Chinese get fed up with their government and its decrees, they'll do something about it. Until then, it's perfectly legitimate for the Chinese authorities to ask American companies operating in their territorial boundaries to abide by their laws and their rules.
If China had an internet portal that sold drugs, hookers, and gambling services, do you really think the U.S. government would allow that to be used here? Hell no. So what makes it ok for us to block content but not other governments? This is why the rest of the world hates us.
And when 5 or 6 billion out of 7 billion don't like you, you should start to wonder if maybe it's you and not them.
As the song goes- "The ignorance is killing me; the violence and the greed. Hypocrisy don't mean a thing when you believe both sides of the story."
As you know, I love to find things that are inconsistent with other things. It's part of being a scientist and a nitpicker. So here's a good one. Congress is busily passing a bill, blessed by your good friend and mine George W., that would make it illegal for American companies (namely Google, Yahoo, and the like) to aid internet censorship in foreign countries (namely China, Korea, and the like). Are you fucking kidding me? Bush is busy refusing every FOIA (that's Freedom of Information Act) request this side of Pyrenees, is actively appointing FCC and FTC cronies that want to kill net neutrality, is asking for protection for American phone companies that illegally spied on Americans, and has not taken a stance against the fact that American internet companies are actively censoring our own internet (ahem...Comcast..I'm looking at you). And now, once again, our "leaders" have climbed up on their high horses and decided to tell the rest of the world (via our search engines) what they should and should not be allowed to do. In this case, what they should or shouldn't see on their internet.
I'm no fan of the kind of internet censorship practiced in China or North Korea or any other country. But I'm more incensed by the fact that our own internet is being censored and spied on yet we still want to tell other governments not to do the same thing. The last time I checked, China's government was the one that got to decide what Chinese citizens can and can't do, not ours. When the Chinese get fed up with their government and its decrees, they'll do something about it. Until then, it's perfectly legitimate for the Chinese authorities to ask American companies operating in their territorial boundaries to abide by their laws and their rules.
If China had an internet portal that sold drugs, hookers, and gambling services, do you really think the U.S. government would allow that to be used here? Hell no. So what makes it ok for us to block content but not other governments? This is why the rest of the world hates us.
And when 5 or 6 billion out of 7 billion don't like you, you should start to wonder if maybe it's you and not them.
As the song goes- "The ignorance is killing me; the violence and the greed. Hypocrisy don't mean a thing when you believe both sides of the story."
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)