Why I Hate Tennessee:
Because, in recent TV ads advocating Ten as a tourist destination, they say Tennessee is responsible for the creation of the "only truly American music". They do not specify if that is Country (Grand Ol' Opry) or Blues (Memphis. Either way, it's wrong.
Why I Hate Government/Politics:
The Government does not represent me. I'm not in the majority, and I'm not a big enough Minority. All of my issues get overlooked because they won't further the careers of power-hungry retards whose only real qualifications are too much money to identify with the common man they claim to be, and the backing of the good ol' boy network (donkey or elephant). Politics isn't horrible enough, all the time, to get really truly worked up about, and that's why it's worth getting really truly pissed off about it. It's insidiously and casually fucked from beginning to end. No system will ever be perfect, and that's not a good enough reason to be happy or satisfied with this one.
ALSO, the government makes HUGE demands on NASA, while restricting the private sector's ability to fully exploit space and NOT FUNDING NASA! Take half of the average amount of money thrown to Iraq in the average month, since the war began, and that could fund NASA for the next 20 years. If that doesn't piss you off, you're one of the reasons
Why I Hate People:
They Suck. They're so independent and willful, and opinionated, and (though rarely) smart. They'd be much more enjoyable if they'd just admit my vast superiority, charm, beauty, intelligence, and creativity (just to name a few of my best points). Did I mention how I'm better than them? Also, they're stupid. It's true. Look at where really smart starts on the Bell Curve. And gullible. And both those qualities give us: religion.
Why I Hate Love:
First, it's far too easy to like love. Second, is WAY over hyped. Not that Love isn't real, or can't be as good as whatever; but it is WAY over hyped. Love won't save the day. Love won't make a bad person good. Love won't make hungry people not die from starvation. Third, I'm not certain Love isn't primarily selfish. Take any reason why Love is about the person/object/ideal loved. Now convince me it's not more about how the lover FEELS around that person/object/ideal. It's okay, take your time; and don't forget to convince yourself first. Finally, too many people think that love is one way or another. These people assign arbitrary categories to degree: loves, likes, interests, physical love, sexual love, mental love, friendly love, brotherly love, mother's love, homosexual love, what-the-fuck-ever love. People take these labels, they add their own fantasized bullshit on top of them, they don't even think about when love is bad (the abused person who loves their abuser, the junky's love for their drug, or the idiot's love of the first person to pay attention to them and not demand too much in return- except complete dominance), and they fall deeply into a morass of sugar, spice, and everything nice. That makes me want to strangle people with their own colons. Go ahead. Conceive of the effort that would take... I'll wait. See how much I hate that?
Why I Hate Hate:
It's too easy to like hate. Hate is purely subjective, but it makes you feel powerful. It's got all the same problems as love, and vice versa. The point is that they're both extremes. Normally, I advocate against extremes, and here I do the same- but I add a caveat. The psyche is a place of extremes. It's abnormal when there are no extremes, ever.
Lastly, the reason I hate love/hate so much: People expect you to care about something because they, or all their friends, or the six homeless guys they let bukkake them for $8, or the Pope, or some other worthless piece of shit, love/hate it. This is like saying something is special because a dog once peed on it. Dogs pee on anything, sometimes to mark their territory, sometimes to pee, and sometimes they're bored. Humans love/hate shit. Not only is love/hate not special, in and of itself, but the object of that love/hate isn't very special, either.
Read More...
Tuesday, September 23, 2008
Monday, September 08, 2008
The Liberal Media and Presidential Campaigning
We're into it now. One of the most important elections in recent memory is currently taking place in the US; and the republican machine is out in force. Sure, every election is the most important- at least, since the last; but this one is a bit different (like all the others). The US is in economic doldrums- to say the least- and there will likely be another Supreme Court nominee during the next four years. The housing market is shit, over all, and oil is steady at three times the price it was just a handful of years ago. The appointees that this president will make are going to affect the political, social, and economic landscape for years to come.
Enter the op-ed. The local newspaper here in Huntsville, Alabama, is the Huntsville Times; and is a part of the regional Times operations. In other words, it's a local out-branch of the NY Times. Though the newspaper itself would like its readers to believe in is neutral, no one does- and for good reason. Look at the opinion pieces, and how they lean politically, and it's easy to see that the Times is catering to a readership that is primarily Republican. In the September 7th, Sunday, edition there was a piece about how the recent conventions effected campaign strategy, one extolling the merits of Senator Lieberman, one saying that if age is a factor for Obama it's also a factor for McCain, and various others.
The convention piece started off talking about the Democrats and Obama. It was a short portion of the overall article and though not exceptionally negative, was certainly not positive. Then, the article continued into the Republican convention. The apologetic acrobatics included dismissing the notion that the Palin-as-VP move was an obvious pander to disaffected Clinton supporters; that McCain wasn't simply "Not Obama"; and touting a "reformer" aspect to the McCain ticket that virtually dripped with pandering to independents via McCain's, and Palin's, fighting "dirty", "corrupt", Republican establishment in Washington.
The piece on Lieberman was written by Joe-ie's old chief of staff. Why? I'd bet it had more than a little to do with Lieberman pissing off most of the Democratic party in the last year or two (at least). The HBO movie Recount, about the misadventures of the 2000 election's polling in Florida, basically said that Lieberman lost the election for Gore due to stupid phrasing of answers during public appearances. Worse, after pandering to his Democratic base about sticking with his party despite being elected as an Independent in 2006, he's gone off the reservation a couple times. Even worse than that, he spoke in endorsement of John McCain- at the Republican National Convention! The former Democratic Nominee for VP, who helped win the popular vote, was endorsing a Republican! Of course his former chief of staff was writing a praise-piece: Joe doesn't want to have to work for a living! The piece made sure to point out that Joe-L was the VP on that popular ticket; that he was married to the daughter of Holocaust survivors; that he was an historic VP nominee; that he won an election despite not being nominated by his own party; and other smaller "praise worthy" tidbits. I think it was Roosevelt or Truman who kicked the last of the Southern "Democrats", who were Republicans by another name, out of his party by saying something like: "It's time for those people in my party who never go along with the rest of the party but who hide under the mantle of a name and so-called 'tradition', to get in line or get out!" Lieberman has distinguished himself, in the last eight years, as a douchebag- from the Democratic prospective. The article was an attempt to give him credibility to independents. He was called, in so many words, a reformer.
Let's be very very clear on John McCain, for a second. He's been two things in his entire life: a pilot- who was shot down and held as a POW- and a politician. McCain deserves vast amounts of respect for his Naval career, and whenever that man talks about torture everyone else should shut the fuck up and take notes. However, he is not a reformer. He is, however, a pandering jackass without strong convictions- other than a junkie-like need to be president. He changed his religion for this campaign- to better please the Republican Base. He's changed his stance on abortion, gay rights, and several other key conservative issues for this campaign- to better please the Republican Base. He has done everything in his power to distance himself from George W. Bush for this campaign- to appeal to the coveted independents, undecideds, swing-voters, and fence-sitters. He's a shill. No one gets to sit in Washington for twenty-five years, having failed his last attempt to run for president by not getting his party's nomination, and call themselves a reformer. He's been planning this campaign for eight years; and it's not going well (though, it's not going horribly wrong, either).
The McCain-Feingold "Campaign Finance Reform" Act is a joke. It did nothing that it didn't also undo by means of opening new loopholes. It didn't? Fuck no! If you were in a position to vote on how easy it would be for you to retain your cozy job, with it's cushy salary, and huge social/political status; would you (1) Try to make it harder to get money that would ensure your ability to stay employed (2) Try to make it easier to get money that would ensure your ability to stay employed (3) Try to fool people into thinking you've done something to protect their interests at personal expense, while effectively doing nothing to the money that would ensure your ability to stay employed? Cause I'm taking option 3 every time. That's what McCain did. His huge reform did nothing, except add new laws onto the books that made things restructure, without any change for the better. In fact, a quick search will reveal that some political analysts think the McCain-Feingold Act hurt campaign finance reform FAR more than it may have helped.
Palin.... Palin.... Palin... Obama has said he doesn't want Palin's daughter's pregnancy to be an issue. Good for him, taking the high road- especially because he knows a lot of people are going to ignore him and take the low road anyway. That is smart. Fuck him, too. There is a HUGE issue here, and it's not just that Palin is an evangelical hypocritical shitbag. Palin is all about some abstinence-only education. Every study that's worth a shit says abstinence only education leads to MORE Sexually Transmitted infections and Teen Pregnancies. That is the only thing that really needs to be said about her daughter. Palin herself is a reformer from Alaska with 12 years political experience- and that's counting her terms as Mayor of Po-dunk-bakwards-ville (population: 8). She's a mulit-whammy pander: (1) to women, especially after some have become estranged with Democrats over Hillary Clinton's loss, (2) She's extremely conservative, favoring abstinence-only sex ed, school prayer, teaching creationism, pro-life, etc (3) She's "young" and "pretty" and a "reformer" who fought the "corrupt Republican establishment" in Alaska... for about 15 minutes. 'Cause being governor of Alaska, with it's hundreds of thousands of people is impressive enough to make someone qualified to run a whole country.....
Seriously, there aren't even 700,000 people in the whole fucking state. It's got the 5th highest average personal income, and the highest cost of living, in the nation. Palin is a shit choice, made to appease as many people as possible; but for that she was really good. Biden was the same thing for Obama; but look at how much Biden helps Big-O versus how much Palin helps Johnnie-Mac. If Palin had run a state with, I dunno, let's say the 5th biggest economy IN THE WORLD [California, anyone?], for more than half of a term, I'd focus on her stupid ass policies. Instead, I like to point out that anyone who dislikes Obama's "inexperience" better shut the fuck up now that McCain pandered-out with Palin. It's McCain's fault that the "inexperienced" tag is hypocritical now- and that's probably because it hasn't been working very well for him, so far. Glad to see the old bastard can still pander with the best of 'em!
The Media isn't liberal- many studies suggest that it is actually conservative. The campaigns for president all have their weaknesses; but one side is "soft" lying, while the other is "hard" lying. Soft lying is where someone speaks of intangibles like "change" and "hope", relative terms that can be spun easily after the election. The other side is blatantly not telling the truth- an easy case to prove is McCain was Episcopalian until this campaign, when he has said he's always been Baptist. Guess what? Politicians lie. The best ones do it with charm, flair, and ease- see Bill Clinton during the Lewinsky bullshit, or all of Ronnie Reagan's presidency. The worst ones call themselves reformers and pander to everyone they can. Read More...
Enter the op-ed. The local newspaper here in Huntsville, Alabama, is the Huntsville Times; and is a part of the regional Times operations. In other words, it's a local out-branch of the NY Times. Though the newspaper itself would like its readers to believe in is neutral, no one does- and for good reason. Look at the opinion pieces, and how they lean politically, and it's easy to see that the Times is catering to a readership that is primarily Republican. In the September 7th, Sunday, edition there was a piece about how the recent conventions effected campaign strategy, one extolling the merits of Senator Lieberman, one saying that if age is a factor for Obama it's also a factor for McCain, and various others.
The convention piece started off talking about the Democrats and Obama. It was a short portion of the overall article and though not exceptionally negative, was certainly not positive. Then, the article continued into the Republican convention. The apologetic acrobatics included dismissing the notion that the Palin-as-VP move was an obvious pander to disaffected Clinton supporters; that McCain wasn't simply "Not Obama"; and touting a "reformer" aspect to the McCain ticket that virtually dripped with pandering to independents via McCain's, and Palin's, fighting "dirty", "corrupt", Republican establishment in Washington.
The piece on Lieberman was written by Joe-ie's old chief of staff. Why? I'd bet it had more than a little to do with Lieberman pissing off most of the Democratic party in the last year or two (at least). The HBO movie Recount, about the misadventures of the 2000 election's polling in Florida, basically said that Lieberman lost the election for Gore due to stupid phrasing of answers during public appearances. Worse, after pandering to his Democratic base about sticking with his party despite being elected as an Independent in 2006, he's gone off the reservation a couple times. Even worse than that, he spoke in endorsement of John McCain- at the Republican National Convention! The former Democratic Nominee for VP, who helped win the popular vote, was endorsing a Republican! Of course his former chief of staff was writing a praise-piece: Joe doesn't want to have to work for a living! The piece made sure to point out that Joe-L was the VP on that popular ticket; that he was married to the daughter of Holocaust survivors; that he was an historic VP nominee; that he won an election despite not being nominated by his own party; and other smaller "praise worthy" tidbits. I think it was Roosevelt or Truman who kicked the last of the Southern "Democrats", who were Republicans by another name, out of his party by saying something like: "It's time for those people in my party who never go along with the rest of the party but who hide under the mantle of a name and so-called 'tradition', to get in line or get out!" Lieberman has distinguished himself, in the last eight years, as a douchebag- from the Democratic prospective. The article was an attempt to give him credibility to independents. He was called, in so many words, a reformer.
Let's be very very clear on John McCain, for a second. He's been two things in his entire life: a pilot- who was shot down and held as a POW- and a politician. McCain deserves vast amounts of respect for his Naval career, and whenever that man talks about torture everyone else should shut the fuck up and take notes. However, he is not a reformer. He is, however, a pandering jackass without strong convictions- other than a junkie-like need to be president. He changed his religion for this campaign- to better please the Republican Base. He's changed his stance on abortion, gay rights, and several other key conservative issues for this campaign- to better please the Republican Base. He has done everything in his power to distance himself from George W. Bush for this campaign- to appeal to the coveted independents, undecideds, swing-voters, and fence-sitters. He's a shill. No one gets to sit in Washington for twenty-five years, having failed his last attempt to run for president by not getting his party's nomination, and call themselves a reformer. He's been planning this campaign for eight years; and it's not going well (though, it's not going horribly wrong, either).
The McCain-Feingold "Campaign Finance Reform" Act is a joke. It did nothing that it didn't also undo by means of opening new loopholes. It didn't? Fuck no! If you were in a position to vote on how easy it would be for you to retain your cozy job, with it's cushy salary, and huge social/political status; would you (1) Try to make it harder to get money that would ensure your ability to stay employed (2) Try to make it easier to get money that would ensure your ability to stay employed (3) Try to fool people into thinking you've done something to protect their interests at personal expense, while effectively doing nothing to the money that would ensure your ability to stay employed? Cause I'm taking option 3 every time. That's what McCain did. His huge reform did nothing, except add new laws onto the books that made things restructure, without any change for the better. In fact, a quick search will reveal that some political analysts think the McCain-Feingold Act hurt campaign finance reform FAR more than it may have helped.
Palin.... Palin.... Palin... Obama has said he doesn't want Palin's daughter's pregnancy to be an issue. Good for him, taking the high road- especially because he knows a lot of people are going to ignore him and take the low road anyway. That is smart. Fuck him, too. There is a HUGE issue here, and it's not just that Palin is an evangelical hypocritical shitbag. Palin is all about some abstinence-only education. Every study that's worth a shit says abstinence only education leads to MORE Sexually Transmitted infections and Teen Pregnancies. That is the only thing that really needs to be said about her daughter. Palin herself is a reformer from Alaska with 12 years political experience- and that's counting her terms as Mayor of Po-dunk-bakwards-ville (population: 8). She's a mulit-whammy pander: (1) to women, especially after some have become estranged with Democrats over Hillary Clinton's loss, (2) She's extremely conservative, favoring abstinence-only sex ed, school prayer, teaching creationism, pro-life, etc (3) She's "young" and "pretty" and a "reformer" who fought the "corrupt Republican establishment" in Alaska... for about 15 minutes. 'Cause being governor of Alaska, with it's hundreds of thousands of people is impressive enough to make someone qualified to run a whole country.....
Seriously, there aren't even 700,000 people in the whole fucking state. It's got the 5th highest average personal income, and the highest cost of living, in the nation. Palin is a shit choice, made to appease as many people as possible; but for that she was really good. Biden was the same thing for Obama; but look at how much Biden helps Big-O versus how much Palin helps Johnnie-Mac. If Palin had run a state with, I dunno, let's say the 5th biggest economy IN THE WORLD [California, anyone?], for more than half of a term, I'd focus on her stupid ass policies. Instead, I like to point out that anyone who dislikes Obama's "inexperience" better shut the fuck up now that McCain pandered-out with Palin. It's McCain's fault that the "inexperienced" tag is hypocritical now- and that's probably because it hasn't been working very well for him, so far. Glad to see the old bastard can still pander with the best of 'em!
The Media isn't liberal- many studies suggest that it is actually conservative. The campaigns for president all have their weaknesses; but one side is "soft" lying, while the other is "hard" lying. Soft lying is where someone speaks of intangibles like "change" and "hope", relative terms that can be spun easily after the election. The other side is blatantly not telling the truth- an easy case to prove is McCain was Episcopalian until this campaign, when he has said he's always been Baptist. Guess what? Politicians lie. The best ones do it with charm, flair, and ease- see Bill Clinton during the Lewinsky bullshit, or all of Ronnie Reagan's presidency. The worst ones call themselves reformers and pander to everyone they can. Read More...
Monday, September 01, 2008
The LHC, Particle Physics, and You!
First off, there is absolutely no danger of the LHC killing the world. The Large Hadron Collider is the largest, most expensive, particle collider ever built. It takes the lead in particle physics out of the hands of the United States, where it's been since Oppenheimer. It's huge, it's awesome, and the best particle physicists in the world work there. They say it's safe, and they're the ones most likely to know.
The LHC is a $6 Billion experiment. Many people hope that it will reveal a new particle- called the Higgs Boson. The Higgs Boson means there is a Higgs field, as quantum mechanical law says every field has a particle. The Higgs Field is a theoretical field that causes mass. It says that more interaction with the Higgs Field, the more massive the particle. Photons, which are very very fast and have very very little mass- virtually none- interact with the Higgs field very little. More massive particles interact more readily, hence their mass. It's a toss-up between who is more excited: The People Who Think They'll Find the Higgs Boson; and Those Who Do Not.
The Higgs Boson would mean the Standard Model (SM) works. Currently, the model has a placeholder where the Higgs Boson could go; but otherwise makes no predictions about mass. Mass isn't explained, despite 40 years of experiments based around the SM and using its predictive equations. If the Higgs Boson exists, it further proves the SM. That would leave Gravity as the next big hurdle for the SM.
If the Higgs Boson does not reveal itself, a bunch of old crap gets shitcanned and new physics must be invented to describe what we've already seen and what we expect to see. This is a very daunting, and extremely exciting, prospect. These new descriptors could make someone's career; but, more importantly, could reveal entirely new ways of thinking about- and looking at- the universe.
According to Wiki-Goodness:
(which you'd already know if you followed the links above)
So, here are my guesses. Guesses, not hypothesis because I do not have the adequate math skills to back this bullshit up. Without much further ado: No Higgs Boson. Why? Because as pretty and predictive as the SM may be, I think it's a kludge. It's a bunch of shit stuck together that works, and no one can really understand why. Which means that some piece of it is bullshit- more probably than not. I think the Higgs is the bullshit, and I'm curious to see where our smart people go from there. Though Gravity is too weak to interfere at high energies, I still think any sort of robost predictive analytic should account for all the particles AND all the forces. Quantum Gravity is hugely elusive, so I hope the LHC proves some of the extra dimensional spaces- despite the new wave of psychic/magic/religious bullshit that will bring on, despite conclusive proof to the contrary- and a begging is started.
To sum up:
1) No, Higgs
2) Yes, Extra Dimensions
3) Yes, understanding why Gravity is so weak.
4) Yes/No to Dark Matter- it's Dark Matter not just because we don't know what it is; but because it's too dark to see. That's not something that a particle accelerator can conclusively prove/disprove. Though experiments might reveal new understandings of what Dark Matter is composed of; it will not reveal what all Dark Matter is- nor will anything else, except going out there and seeing it (virtually impossible).
Those are my guesses- except number 4, which is- in actuality- a fact. Read More...
The LHC is a $6 Billion experiment. Many people hope that it will reveal a new particle- called the Higgs Boson. The Higgs Boson means there is a Higgs field, as quantum mechanical law says every field has a particle. The Higgs Field is a theoretical field that causes mass. It says that more interaction with the Higgs Field, the more massive the particle. Photons, which are very very fast and have very very little mass- virtually none- interact with the Higgs field very little. More massive particles interact more readily, hence their mass. It's a toss-up between who is more excited: The People Who Think They'll Find the Higgs Boson; and Those Who Do Not.
The Higgs Boson would mean the Standard Model (SM) works. Currently, the model has a placeholder where the Higgs Boson could go; but otherwise makes no predictions about mass. Mass isn't explained, despite 40 years of experiments based around the SM and using its predictive equations. If the Higgs Boson exists, it further proves the SM. That would leave Gravity as the next big hurdle for the SM.
If the Higgs Boson does not reveal itself, a bunch of old crap gets shitcanned and new physics must be invented to describe what we've already seen and what we expect to see. This is a very daunting, and extremely exciting, prospect. These new descriptors could make someone's career; but, more importantly, could reveal entirely new ways of thinking about- and looking at- the universe.
According to Wiki-Goodness:
The collider is currently undergoing commissioning while being cooled down to its final operating temperature of approximately 1.9 K (−271.25 °C). Initial particle beam injections were successfully carried out on 8-11 August, 2008, the first attempt to circulate a beam through the entire LHC is scheduled for 10 September 2008, and the first high-energy collisions are planned to take place after the LHC is officially unveiled, on 21 October 2008.
(which you'd already know if you followed the links above)
So, here are my guesses. Guesses, not hypothesis because I do not have the adequate math skills to back this bullshit up. Without much further ado: No Higgs Boson. Why? Because as pretty and predictive as the SM may be, I think it's a kludge. It's a bunch of shit stuck together that works, and no one can really understand why. Which means that some piece of it is bullshit- more probably than not. I think the Higgs is the bullshit, and I'm curious to see where our smart people go from there. Though Gravity is too weak to interfere at high energies, I still think any sort of robost predictive analytic should account for all the particles AND all the forces. Quantum Gravity is hugely elusive, so I hope the LHC proves some of the extra dimensional spaces- despite the new wave of psychic/magic/religious bullshit that will bring on, despite conclusive proof to the contrary- and a begging is started.
To sum up:
1) No, Higgs
2) Yes, Extra Dimensions
3) Yes, understanding why Gravity is so weak.
4) Yes/No to Dark Matter- it's Dark Matter not just because we don't know what it is; but because it's too dark to see. That's not something that a particle accelerator can conclusively prove/disprove. Though experiments might reveal new understandings of what Dark Matter is composed of; it will not reveal what all Dark Matter is- nor will anything else, except going out there and seeing it (virtually impossible).
Those are my guesses- except number 4, which is- in actuality- a fact. Read More...
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
Posts
