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 You waste expensive, non-renewable resources because you have an outdated concept of how to start a car or because you need your car to be the perfect temperature.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.
Saturday, October 27, 2007
And the survey says....
Today was pretty easy. I put new tires on the car, wrapped up revisions for 3 dissertation chapters, played some GTA. And found a copy of Blender under a box. For giggles, I read it. Now I have something to write about (I'd say "to blog about" but blog IS NOT A VERB) while I watch The Boondocks.
Who the fuck is responsible for these ludicrous top X lists? Just insert a random number, usually 10, 50, or 100, and you have the new American pastime. Blender had "The Forty Worst Lyricists Ever". Let's examine the list. At #40 Anthony Kiedis. #37 Bryan Adams. #34 Carly Simon. #30 Kevin Federline. #23 Robert Plant. #18 Ian Anderson. #10 Jim Morrison. #1 Sting.
Are you fucking stupid? You're telling me that Sting, Jim, Ian, and Robert are worse lyricists that Kevin Federline? Apparently people with actual lyrical and musical talent can't hold a candle to the lyrics "Bring your ass/On the floor and move it real fast/I want to see your kitty and a little bit of titty/Want to know where I go when I'm in your city?" Just for that, every single person on that committee should be strapped down and forced to listen to that song until their ears explode. For God's sake, Fred Durst was only #24. He's made a career out of poorly thought out lyrics and putting into "musical" form every beef he has with other celebrities.
Don't get me wrong. Every great band has bad lyrics. But the list wasn't "Worst Lyrics Ever", it was worst lyricists. This is why pop music today is fucking useless. People can't even recognize great lyrics or music because they're surrounded by this trash. There is no Bob Dylan for my generation. He would have been run out of town.
Let's examine some lists. 100 hottest women. Why is Eva Longoria at the top? Peter's description of Sarah Jessica Parker is apt: "her face looks like a foot". 100 things you can do to please you man. Why is #1 never "show up naked"? Because that's the answer.
These things are a waste of time. Let's all agree to stop reading and watching them. That way they'll go away. Alternatively, let's put some informed people on the committee. And let's give actual reasons for why the rankings fell the way they did. If bookies ranked sports teams the way these morons organize their lists, then the Rockies would be favored to win the Series and my fantasy football team would be destined for greatness.
Also, I got the job I wanted at UW. Yay me. I guess now I'm an official scientician since I get paid to do it outside of a teaching environment.
Who the fuck is responsible for these ludicrous top X lists? Just insert a random number, usually 10, 50, or 100, and you have the new American pastime. Blender had "The Forty Worst Lyricists Ever". Let's examine the list. At #40 Anthony Kiedis. #37 Bryan Adams. #34 Carly Simon. #30 Kevin Federline. #23 Robert Plant. #18 Ian Anderson. #10 Jim Morrison. #1 Sting.
Are you fucking stupid? You're telling me that Sting, Jim, Ian, and Robert are worse lyricists that Kevin Federline? Apparently people with actual lyrical and musical talent can't hold a candle to the lyrics "Bring your ass/On the floor and move it real fast/I want to see your kitty and a little bit of titty/Want to know where I go when I'm in your city?" Just for that, every single person on that committee should be strapped down and forced to listen to that song until their ears explode. For God's sake, Fred Durst was only #24. He's made a career out of poorly thought out lyrics and putting into "musical" form every beef he has with other celebrities.
Don't get me wrong. Every great band has bad lyrics. But the list wasn't "Worst Lyrics Ever", it was worst lyricists. This is why pop music today is fucking useless. People can't even recognize great lyrics or music because they're surrounded by this trash. There is no Bob Dylan for my generation. He would have been run out of town.
Let's examine some lists. 100 hottest women. Why is Eva Longoria at the top? Peter's description of Sarah Jessica Parker is apt: "her face looks like a foot". 100 things you can do to please you man. Why is #1 never "show up naked"? Because that's the answer.
These things are a waste of time. Let's all agree to stop reading and watching them. That way they'll go away. Alternatively, let's put some informed people on the committee. And let's give actual reasons for why the rankings fell the way they did. If bookies ranked sports teams the way these morons organize their lists, then the Rockies would be favored to win the Series and my fantasy football team would be destined for greatness.
Also, I got the job I wanted at UW. Yay me. I guess now I'm an official scientician since I get paid to do it outside of a teaching environment.
Friday, October 26, 2007
Like Britney said, "Gimme more"
I was reading an article today on DRAM price fixing between 1999-2002. That's computer memory for non-nerds. It got me thinking about some things I think we need to discuss.
A number of years ago (I don't remember how many exactly), the AT&T monopoly over phone service was broken up in order to let more companies into the market, bring prices down, increase competition...the usual knee-jerk answers from people interested in deregulation. And to an extent, I agree. Why be at the mercy of one phone company when you can heel to five or six? Just rotating between them chasing the lowest price, but getting the same poor service from each. More to the point- has anyone looked at their phone bill lately? AT&T seems to be making a comeback. They've been given a monopoly on the iPhone market (which is funny since Apple is always pissed off about Microsoft's hold on the OS market). They're sucking up smaller companies like a hooker on balls. And now they're not just offering phone calls, but internet and cable as well. I guess we decided they were punished enough and are allowing them to resume their ways. I can't prove they're a monopoly, but its awful suspicious. Also-change your stupid name. We don't use telegraphs anymore.
Consider this: cell phones used to be hundreds of bills and were only for the tragically trendy. And the service to keep them working was just as heavy on the wallet. Skip ahead 10 years. Everyone has a cell phone (except me). Cell phones are cheaper than 12 oz. Mouse animation. Companies are giving them away. But the service prices? Not much less than they were. Net gain for the phone company. They don't have to sell phones. That's obvious by the sales pitch: they'll give you an expensive phone for cheap or give you a "free" phone for signing long-term contracts. They're making their money on the services. What services? Mostly shit that's free for land lines. They say they're not charging you for it, but the phone bill says otherwise. They may say "it's more expensive to set up cell phone services." That's only partially true. Satellites are expensive. But each one can process millions of calls that used to require banks and banks of expensive automated relay systems. Cost per phone goes down, the cost of services should too. But it hasn't.
Another good example: TVs. The LCD panels used on these are being dumped off a factory line faster than American produce on third world markets (if you get the economics joke there, good for you). Have prices come down in the past 10 years? Yes. That's to be expected. Are we still paying a premium even though the technology is 20 years old? Yes. That's where the problem is. You can pick up a 27" analog TV for $150-$200 dollars depending on where you buy and what you want. A 26" LCD will set you back 3-4 times as much. These TVs are more expensive to produce than analog TVs, but not by 3-4 times. They're much cheaper to package and ship. Loser in this equation: consumer. They get the same size tv with the same features for much more money.
It all boils down to greed. People are greedy bastards. It's something our society promotes and something we treat as a laudable goal. Get more. Get more expensive. Show those other guys what a terrific person you are because of all the things you have. When you die, dip your bones in gold so everyone knows how great you were. As for me, I'll take a land line, my eye-cancer producing TV, and internet porn. Also Jack in the Box. I'm a simple person. Those are pretty much all I need to get by.
A number of years ago (I don't remember how many exactly), the AT&T monopoly over phone service was broken up in order to let more companies into the market, bring prices down, increase competition...the usual knee-jerk answers from people interested in deregulation. And to an extent, I agree. Why be at the mercy of one phone company when you can heel to five or six? Just rotating between them chasing the lowest price, but getting the same poor service from each. More to the point- has anyone looked at their phone bill lately? AT&T seems to be making a comeback. They've been given a monopoly on the iPhone market (which is funny since Apple is always pissed off about Microsoft's hold on the OS market). They're sucking up smaller companies like a hooker on balls. And now they're not just offering phone calls, but internet and cable as well. I guess we decided they were punished enough and are allowing them to resume their ways. I can't prove they're a monopoly, but its awful suspicious. Also-change your stupid name. We don't use telegraphs anymore.
Consider this: cell phones used to be hundreds of bills and were only for the tragically trendy. And the service to keep them working was just as heavy on the wallet. Skip ahead 10 years. Everyone has a cell phone (except me). Cell phones are cheaper than 12 oz. Mouse animation. Companies are giving them away. But the service prices? Not much less than they were. Net gain for the phone company. They don't have to sell phones. That's obvious by the sales pitch: they'll give you an expensive phone for cheap or give you a "free" phone for signing long-term contracts. They're making their money on the services. What services? Mostly shit that's free for land lines. They say they're not charging you for it, but the phone bill says otherwise. They may say "it's more expensive to set up cell phone services." That's only partially true. Satellites are expensive. But each one can process millions of calls that used to require banks and banks of expensive automated relay systems. Cost per phone goes down, the cost of services should too. But it hasn't.
Another good example: TVs. The LCD panels used on these are being dumped off a factory line faster than American produce on third world markets (if you get the economics joke there, good for you). Have prices come down in the past 10 years? Yes. That's to be expected. Are we still paying a premium even though the technology is 20 years old? Yes. That's where the problem is. You can pick up a 27" analog TV for $150-$200 dollars depending on where you buy and what you want. A 26" LCD will set you back 3-4 times as much. These TVs are more expensive to produce than analog TVs, but not by 3-4 times. They're much cheaper to package and ship. Loser in this equation: consumer. They get the same size tv with the same features for much more money.
It all boils down to greed. People are greedy bastards. It's something our society promotes and something we treat as a laudable goal. Get more. Get more expensive. Show those other guys what a terrific person you are because of all the things you have. When you die, dip your bones in gold so everyone knows how great you were. As for me, I'll take a land line, my eye-cancer producing TV, and internet porn. Also Jack in the Box. I'm a simple person. Those are pretty much all I need to get by.
Tuesday, October 23, 2007
A letter from an old friend
No updates lately...been busy and lazy. I find out about my job this Friday. And my defense is in a month. In the interim...
I got a letter last weekend from my good buddy Santa...sorry, I mean Satan. He left it on my door, along with some excellent literature about how I can help decrease incidents involving human sacrifice this Halloween. He also left me a wonderful comic book about Jesus. Apparently, Satan's been watching me. He knows how un-godly I've been. He knows I didn't pray when I got up, when I went to bed, before I ate dinner, or before my morning BM. I forgot he was such a voyeur. I guess a spicy chicken sandwich and the runs is grounds for giving thanks to God. And apparently Christianity is the new Islam, with prescribed daily prayers before and after I do anything.
I always enjoy it when people kill trees so they can inform me that I'm going to hell. I know not all religious people are this kooky, but come on. A letter from Satan? You're really giving the middle of the road kooks a bad name. I have enough problems worrying about my own life. I don't know what it's like to sit around all day and worry about other people's immortal souls.
When was the last time you heard about someone being sacrificed? Salem, circa 1692? It's happening regularly I guess. Apparently, sacrifices INCREASE on Halloween. This implies that there is some number of sacrifices each day during the year and this particular day just brings them out. So watch your backs. Especially if you're a virgin. They seem to be the most likely targets. Also remember if you are sacrificed, I WILL laugh at you. Why? Because you were a virgin. And now everyone knows.
I never could bring myself to jump into the idea of heaven and hell. But it's times like these I hope hell exists. That way, when these knuckle-dragging fools go the way of disco and Bush's political career, I can sleep soundly knowing they're the only ones in hell who will really suffer. The rest of us will just continue doing what we loved to do here: eating, sleeping, drinking, gambling, fucking, and generally being people.
If heaven is going to be full of whining, overly pious, hate-peddling, fear-mongering, pro-war but pro-life cry-babies, I want no part of it.
Heil Satan!
I got a letter last weekend from my good buddy Santa...sorry, I mean Satan. He left it on my door, along with some excellent literature about how I can help decrease incidents involving human sacrifice this Halloween. He also left me a wonderful comic book about Jesus. Apparently, Satan's been watching me. He knows how un-godly I've been. He knows I didn't pray when I got up, when I went to bed, before I ate dinner, or before my morning BM. I forgot he was such a voyeur. I guess a spicy chicken sandwich and the runs is grounds for giving thanks to God. And apparently Christianity is the new Islam, with prescribed daily prayers before and after I do anything.
I always enjoy it when people kill trees so they can inform me that I'm going to hell. I know not all religious people are this kooky, but come on. A letter from Satan? You're really giving the middle of the road kooks a bad name. I have enough problems worrying about my own life. I don't know what it's like to sit around all day and worry about other people's immortal souls.
When was the last time you heard about someone being sacrificed? Salem, circa 1692? It's happening regularly I guess. Apparently, sacrifices INCREASE on Halloween. This implies that there is some number of sacrifices each day during the year and this particular day just brings them out. So watch your backs. Especially if you're a virgin. They seem to be the most likely targets. Also remember if you are sacrificed, I WILL laugh at you. Why? Because you were a virgin. And now everyone knows.
I never could bring myself to jump into the idea of heaven and hell. But it's times like these I hope hell exists. That way, when these knuckle-dragging fools go the way of disco and Bush's political career, I can sleep soundly knowing they're the only ones in hell who will really suffer. The rest of us will just continue doing what we loved to do here: eating, sleeping, drinking, gambling, fucking, and generally being people.
If heaven is going to be full of whining, overly pious, hate-peddling, fear-mongering, pro-war but pro-life cry-babies, I want no part of it.
Heil Satan!
Monday, October 15, 2007
Typical American
My brother posed a great question. He asked "Are you a typical American? What makes you think you are?" (paraphrased) It's a genius question because it makes you really think about what being American means and how you fit in to your own narrow definition of American. So here is my belated answer.
Am I a typical American? I have to answer yes. From this blog, you can tell I'm not particularly patriotic. In fact, I think nationalism is one of the great stains on both foreign and domestic policy. But when it comes down to it, I'm just another typical American.
Why? It's because this is the social milieu in which I was raised. It's where I feel most comfortable. It's an accident of birth. But I could never be American strictly on the basis of high minded ideals like liberty and democracy. Many peoples have those beliefs, yet aren't typical Americans.
So what makes me a typical American? I would rather point out flaws than do anything to change them. I'm not particularly willing to make sacrifices, even though they may be better for everyone in the long term. (As my lovely wife pointed out, she's gone through many difficulties in being a vegetarian and practicing what she believes. Like a typical American, I'm not really going to do that unless there's a very good, very specific reason). I'm a typical American because every day I take advantage of the personal rights we have (speech, press, assembly, etc.) and don't think twice about them. I take for granted the things I have that 90% of the world lives without. I still produce hundreds of pounds of garbage a year. I waste food that could have fed the billion starving people in the world. I tend to be individualistic. I like to think I got where I am not because I had help but because I did it myself. And, like many Americans, I find 99% of other Americans ignorant fools.
Personally, I don't want to be an American. I don't want anyone to identify with abstract concepts and arbitrary boundaries on maps. Those concepts only lead to exclusion, fear, violence, and hate. I want people to just be human, to worry about their own affairs and take care of their families. Spend less time telling other people what to believe and why. Treat them like people. You may not like their ideas or fashion or music or gods. But that's no reason to trample them. But maybe that's a part of being human though...the need to act superior and stronger than others. I think it's not. I think it's something that began as a defense and safety mechanism in pre-homo sapiens and has since become irrelevant. But it still goes on. It's still being taught in schools. Not out right, but silently, often by omission. We've defined our territory, our social boundaries, our comfort zone. Conform or die or be assimilated. Resistance is futile.
So yeah, I'm a typical American. But that's my definition of American. I'm not proud of much of what this country has done, often in the name of "the people". But I don't have to agree with everything that happens. That's the beauty of being in America. You can disagree with everything but still be accepted (with the following current exceptions: Hispanics, Latinos, Muslims, Communists). But I can't imagine living anywhere else. No matter how much I love to travel and see new places and ideas, I'll probably never be as comfortable there as I am here.
Am I a typical American? I have to answer yes. From this blog, you can tell I'm not particularly patriotic. In fact, I think nationalism is one of the great stains on both foreign and domestic policy. But when it comes down to it, I'm just another typical American.
Why? It's because this is the social milieu in which I was raised. It's where I feel most comfortable. It's an accident of birth. But I could never be American strictly on the basis of high minded ideals like liberty and democracy. Many peoples have those beliefs, yet aren't typical Americans.
So what makes me a typical American? I would rather point out flaws than do anything to change them. I'm not particularly willing to make sacrifices, even though they may be better for everyone in the long term. (As my lovely wife pointed out, she's gone through many difficulties in being a vegetarian and practicing what she believes. Like a typical American, I'm not really going to do that unless there's a very good, very specific reason). I'm a typical American because every day I take advantage of the personal rights we have (speech, press, assembly, etc.) and don't think twice about them. I take for granted the things I have that 90% of the world lives without. I still produce hundreds of pounds of garbage a year. I waste food that could have fed the billion starving people in the world. I tend to be individualistic. I like to think I got where I am not because I had help but because I did it myself. And, like many Americans, I find 99% of other Americans ignorant fools.
Personally, I don't want to be an American. I don't want anyone to identify with abstract concepts and arbitrary boundaries on maps. Those concepts only lead to exclusion, fear, violence, and hate. I want people to just be human, to worry about their own affairs and take care of their families. Spend less time telling other people what to believe and why. Treat them like people. You may not like their ideas or fashion or music or gods. But that's no reason to trample them. But maybe that's a part of being human though...the need to act superior and stronger than others. I think it's not. I think it's something that began as a defense and safety mechanism in pre-homo sapiens and has since become irrelevant. But it still goes on. It's still being taught in schools. Not out right, but silently, often by omission. We've defined our territory, our social boundaries, our comfort zone. Conform or die or be assimilated. Resistance is futile.
So yeah, I'm a typical American. But that's my definition of American. I'm not proud of much of what this country has done, often in the name of "the people". But I don't have to agree with everything that happens. That's the beauty of being in America. You can disagree with everything but still be accepted (with the following current exceptions: Hispanics, Latinos, Muslims, Communists). But I can't imagine living anywhere else. No matter how much I love to travel and see new places and ideas, I'll probably never be as comfortable there as I am here.
Sunday, October 14, 2007
Obviously these people are not reading my blog...
Today we have two things to discuss: The U.N. and congressman Dana Rohrabacher
Here's a quote from Parade Magazine from a survey of 25,000 people asking "Does the U.N. matter?" Don Bailey writes "The UN would be effective if debate and diplomacy could actually make a difference in world affairs, but too many countries have no intention of following its mandates and just take its assistance to pursue their own agendas. The U.S. should leave the UN and deal only with nations that are truly interested in peace."
Well, FUCK YOU Don. You can kiss the fattest part of my ass and then go drive off a bridge and drown. Are you serious? The U.S. has NEVER had any intention of following ANY mandate of the U.N. The U.S. right now has no interest in any kind of peace. Just look at our foreign policy for the last seven years. The U.N. was a great idea. But since the U.S. is unwilling to share power with other members, is unwilling to follow the same rules it expects everyone to follow, and won't even pay its dues, it's become a joke. You obviously have no idea how your own country is violating the principles and ideas of the U.N. that you expect these other countries to follow. So go back to Texas and wait to die and keep your mouth shut. When you are willing to admit that the U.S. should be held to the same rules and ideals as the rest of the world, then you can open your mouth. You are why the U.N. doesn't work and your government is no better than these other countries.
Now for the congresssman. Here's his quote: "The people who are against Blackwater are against America. They want America to lose."
Your punishment for this sentence and your stupidity shall be the following: You have to go to Iraq. You will be dressed as an Iraqi local, preferably a young man. You'll be walking down the street, on your way to the local market, when a group of heavily armed mercenaries who's job is to provide "security" come around the corner. Your head will then be destroyed by a hail of bullets from a semi-automatic rifle. When your family asks why you were killed, they'll be told that you were posing a threat and no further mention will be made of you.
Obviously you didn't read my post from yesterday. Just because I believe that ALL groups in Iraq should have both congressional and civilian oversight, I'm anti-American? Blackwater is composed of nothing more than over-sexed, violent ex-military jerk-offs that apparently think they are above the law. When we send "security" groups to Iraq, their job is to protect civilians, not kill them and then hide the evidence. Since you think it's ok to do those things, they should arrest you as an accessory to murder. Fuck you. You don't deserve to live in America. You deserve to suffer with the other third-world countries you've worked so hard to militarize and exploit.
Here's a quote from Parade Magazine from a survey of 25,000 people asking "Does the U.N. matter?" Don Bailey writes "The UN would be effective if debate and diplomacy could actually make a difference in world affairs, but too many countries have no intention of following its mandates and just take its assistance to pursue their own agendas. The U.S. should leave the UN and deal only with nations that are truly interested in peace."
Well, FUCK YOU Don. You can kiss the fattest part of my ass and then go drive off a bridge and drown. Are you serious? The U.S. has NEVER had any intention of following ANY mandate of the U.N. The U.S. right now has no interest in any kind of peace. Just look at our foreign policy for the last seven years. The U.N. was a great idea. But since the U.S. is unwilling to share power with other members, is unwilling to follow the same rules it expects everyone to follow, and won't even pay its dues, it's become a joke. You obviously have no idea how your own country is violating the principles and ideas of the U.N. that you expect these other countries to follow. So go back to Texas and wait to die and keep your mouth shut. When you are willing to admit that the U.S. should be held to the same rules and ideals as the rest of the world, then you can open your mouth. You are why the U.N. doesn't work and your government is no better than these other countries.
Now for the congresssman. Here's his quote: "The people who are against Blackwater are against America. They want America to lose."
Your punishment for this sentence and your stupidity shall be the following: You have to go to Iraq. You will be dressed as an Iraqi local, preferably a young man. You'll be walking down the street, on your way to the local market, when a group of heavily armed mercenaries who's job is to provide "security" come around the corner. Your head will then be destroyed by a hail of bullets from a semi-automatic rifle. When your family asks why you were killed, they'll be told that you were posing a threat and no further mention will be made of you.
Obviously you didn't read my post from yesterday. Just because I believe that ALL groups in Iraq should have both congressional and civilian oversight, I'm anti-American? Blackwater is composed of nothing more than over-sexed, violent ex-military jerk-offs that apparently think they are above the law. When we send "security" groups to Iraq, their job is to protect civilians, not kill them and then hide the evidence. Since you think it's ok to do those things, they should arrest you as an accessory to murder. Fuck you. You don't deserve to live in America. You deserve to suffer with the other third-world countries you've worked so hard to militarize and exploit.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)