The Body Politik

I'd like to have my own country, somewhere. Not a super power, per se; but a big chunk o land where I could rule as the benevolent dictator. I assume this is something of a common fantasy. And fantasy it is, because I'd want it to be America; but right... and Ruled Solely by ME.

A perfect place I could escape to every 4-8 years when the others take back over.

In a fantasy world, where everyone would instantly recognize and worship my obvious brilliance.

But, eventually, I'd never come back. I mean a lot of the time, my side is just as stupid as theirs.

But at least it'd be a constant 76 degrees, night and day, on my utopian isle of MINE-ness...
Read More...

Collins and the NIH

Francis Collins, of the Human Genome Project, is the rumored Obama appointee to head the NIH, the National Institutes of Health.

After the last eight years of science-bashing religionistas, do we really need more people who can't separate their personal superstition from science?

Pharyngula says No:
http://scienceblogs.com/pharyngula/2009/05/dis-appointment.php

http://scienceblogs.com/pharyngula/2009/05/holier_than_thou.php

http://scienceblogs.com/pharyngula/2009/05/more_on_what_we_can_expect_fro.php

I agree.

{BTW: Blogger is annoying....}
Read More...

Great News, Again!

NASA announced Thursday an $18.69 billion budget for fiscal year 2010 to advance Earth science, complete the International Space Station, explore the solar system and conduct aeronautics research. The budget request represents an increase of $903.6 million, or 5 percent, above funding provided in the fiscal year 2009 Omnibus Appropriations Act. All totaled, an additional $2 billion has been added to NASA's 2009 and 2010 budgets under the Obama administration.

read on at:
http://www.nasa.gov/home/hqnews/2009/may/HQ_09-102_FY2010Budget.html
Read More...

Hate and the Art of Oppression

I learned hate. When I was a child, my mother always commented on how sweet I was; nothing unique about it, most mothers think their children are sweet- most children are, in my experience. In school, I was poor, geeky, gangly, unpopular, quiet, smart, and generally an outsider. The other children saw to it that I became intimately aware of my differences, my flaws, and my shortcomings. I was given to the wolves, and the wolves taught me rage, injustice, pain, and disgust.

This is not a unique story. Lord of the Flies, and countless other stories, songs, movies, books, and lessons, have taught us all that these are not instructions unknown to previous generations. If nothing else, we share with all other humans our indoctrination in violence and hate at the hands of one another.

Something about us seeks to defeat the different, conquer the unknown, whether it be by naming it, or killing it. There are lectures by Prof. Robert Sapolsky on the neurobiology of primate sexuality, where he talks about Composite faces. It turns out that the more individuals used to make a composite face, the more attractive the face is rated during testing. Sapolsky says we seek out others that are not so similar to us that they might be family, but not so different that they are of a different species. Our most basic instincts- to mate- are wired for "normal", "average", "sameness", why should anyone be surprised most aspects of our culture mimic that compulsive yearning?

Atheists scare people. They are seen as immoral, untrustworthy, degenerate, different, and unknowable. The majority of people in the world profess some religion- even some people that call themselves "Atheists" still speak of spirituality. The scared, mistrustful, masses react with aggression to those they see as fundamentally opposed to their "way of life".

Atheists make up as much as 12, or even 15, percent of the population (depending on how you define it and which surveys {like this or this} you look at). We are a part of this country, and we are not to be feared. Anyone who knows 10 people knows someone who would describe themselves as non-religious- whether they use a term like "Atheist", "Agnostic", "Secular", or something else.

Hate is a dangerous thing. It can be useful, spurring someone to do more than they might otherwise. Unfortunately, that can mean the difference between failure and accomplishment, or arguing and killing. Fear, biology, and tradition tell us to fear the invaders from over the hill- after all, they are who will come in the night to steal our mothers, daughters, fathers, sons, mules, and food. This fear, often without any conscious effort, easily turns into hate; hate we pass on to our children, who pass it on to their peers.

In 1984, the year Dan White was released from prison, there was a documentary about Harvey Milk, the first openly gay man to hold an elected position in the United States. That Documentary, The Times of Harvey Milk is current up at HULU. It is a staggering example of what can happen when people come together, despite their differences, and the tragedy one hateful person can inflict upon a community. It is a lesson, and a warning.

For Atheists out there, pay close attention to the speech Harvey Milk is giving after Proposition 6 is voted down (at roughly 47 minutes in).


[For those who couldn't hear it, what Jerry Brown says to President Carter is "Reagan already endorsed it, so I think it's safe."]

"A lot of people joined us and rejected Proposition 6, and now we owe them something. We owe them to continue the education campaign that took place. We must destroy the myths once and for all, shatter them. We must continue to speak out. And, most importantly, most importantly, every gay person MUST come out!
"As difficult as it is, you must tell your immediate family. You must tell your relatives. You must tell your friends- if indeed they are your friends. You must tell your neighbors. You must tell the people you work with. You must tell the people in the stores you shop in.
"And, once they realize that we are- indeed- their children, that we are- indeed- everywhere; Every Myth, Every Lie, Every Innuendo, will be destroyed once and for all. And once, once, you do, you will feel so much better!"

For Atheists and the non-religious, replace "gay"- in that speech- with the word you use to describe yourself.

Don't let the cycle continue, don't allow the fear and the hate to thrive- like they so readily do, in the darkness of secrecy: stand up and be counted. Singly we are but one or two, here or there; Together we are everyone, United we are everywhere.

I am a brother, an uncle, a son, an aspiring writer, and a person. My Name is Thomas Delaney Hand, I am an Atheist and a Skeptic.
Read More...

Climate Change

I'm listening to the most recent Intelligence Squared Podcast, and it's about Climate Change.

I'm having some thoughts.



I don't like Climate Change.

It's not that I don't want it to happen, or that it's inexorably bad. I'm not sure of a lot of the facts about it. The problem isn't so much that the only "science" against it is funded by BIG OIL. Neither is it, that people are causing it. All of that is true enough, in it's way. My problem with it isn't even on whether it's happening. It is. (Over the past century the temperature of the entire planet has risen more than half a degree celsius.)

My problem is with what it means, what we can do to actually help, and the general eco-freak uprising surrounding the issue.

Listen to the debate on I^2. (The motion was "Major Reductions in Carbon Emissions Are Not Worth the Money.") The side against the motion says reducing Carbon Emissions will save the world. And they provide a lot of unsourced, vaguely sourced, or unapologetically anecdotal evidence.

The side against says, basically, the opposite; and they "prove" it using the same style.

What it comes down to is money. Let's say it would take 3-4% of the entire world's GDP to reduce carbon emissions by 30% in 20 years. First, understand these numbers do not reflect actual figures and estimates- those are more like 3-4% for less than 15% reduction. Second- and here's my main point- understand what 3-4% of the entire world's GDP actually means.

Here's where you should probably start: The combined net worth of the 25 million most wealthy people in the world, is equal to the combined net worth of the lowest 2 Billion [according to the BBC]. That's, roughly, 100 to 1. If we subtract 3-4% of wealth from going towards providing energy, groceries, wages, etc etc; where does it come from?

Either, it comes from everybody equally. Or, as it usually does: The large majority comes from the wealthy. But the rest comes from the poor.

The wealthy who could easily continue to be extravagant with 3-4% less; and the poor, who would still be barely living if their wealth were increased by 3-4%. 3% of 100 dollars is 3 dollars. 3% of a million is 30,000.

The side that says Carbon Emissions should be reduced, regardless of the costs, don't deny that even if they were reduced the climate would continue to change. No one is talking about stopping what's happened/happening/going to happen. However, the side that wants to curb Carbon, is dismissive of the expenditures required. Calling it "investments".

How are these "investments" different from simple costs? It's hard to pin-down the actual differences. Seeing as any difference is just supposition, it's unlikely we'd ever be able to fully tell if such expenditures were costs or investments, until after we'd made them. Remember the huge infrastructure spending of the New Deal, that helped to end the Great Depression? Well, according to Austrian School Economists, that prolonged the depression. (Kensians disagree.)

See how this is a bit more complicated than we're sometimes led to believe?

But, again, the point is the money. Take 3% away from a poor subsistence farmer in Africa, or South America, or Asia; and that could very well mean the death/starvation of the farmer. Okay, so we hit the really rich harder and we take away 1% from the poor.

Sure, that sounds good; until you start thinking about how these thing really would/will happen. It's going to be a rise in energy costs. Which means EVERYTHING, that requires any energy, becomes more expensive- especially consumables (i.e. food).

The people who want these dramatic sums of money used for their purposes- nobel as they may be- really don't seem to be in touch with the reality of people who struggle, not from paycheck to paycheck because they spend too much at the MacDonald's or "down at the pub", but from meal to meal because they don't have enough money to properly feed themselves. {Here's a tidbit I like to reference: it's only been since, roughly, the 1970s, that people in rural America could be accurately assumed to have enough to eat to be getting proper daily nutrition. Look it up.}

China wants less pollution in their cities, yet they need more power. So, they keep building coal plants, fund "clean coal" (which isn't), and research how to manipulate the weather to keep the coal smoke out of heavily populated areas. They also want to make some nuclear plants; but it takes highly educated workers to run nuclear facilities. People capable of problem solving on the fly. That sort of independent, intelligent, worker isn't conducive to the type of government currently running China. And the Chinese aren't stupid, they saw Russia's failures with nuclear- Chernobyl was due in no small part to the lack of adequate training and intelligence on the part of plant workers. (They were picking up radioactive waste with their hands and throwing it back into the exploded reactor core, all while wearing rubber chemical suits. These were not sophisticated nuclear physicists.)

So what will China do? They have a lot of coal. Coal is incredibly cheap, and they have the ability, supplies, and personnel to make more coal power plants. I'm betting they don't stop.

What about Ethiopia, Nigeria, Kenya, Sudan, Columbia, Venezuela, Peru, Mexico? How many of those countries have the people, money, or ability to the design, build, and safely run nuclear power plants?

And let's face it: Nuclear is the only option. Solar, wind, tidal... it's all intermittent. Hydroelectric is an option- but not for everybody, everywhere; and even when it is viable, it's got its own environmental impacts. The "renewables" are all HUGELY inefficient, expensive, and- worse- there's no reliable, clean, efficient way of storing the power they produce that isn't immediately used.

Nigeria, Venezuela, China.. they're not moving away from coal and petroleum any time soon. Neither is Russia. Neither are we.

Try to force it on them, and it'll get passed onto their poorest, their weakest, and their most vulnerable if they don't just laugh and continue doing what they want, regardless.

Try to only handle it ourselves, and it'll lead to the same untenable situation.

Imagine 50 years later, when the US is completely run on nuclear (or other clean, renewable energy), but Africa, Asia, and South America have made 2 coal burning power plants for every 1 we shut down. If you don't think it's possible, go find the numbers of coal power plants China is expected to build (or has announced it will build) over the next ten years.

Energy costs aren't taxes; but they have the same effect- they hurt the poorest the most. Raise the price of bread, milk, or rice by a dollar; and watch the fallout. Chances are Bill Gates won't starve to death, but children in sub-Saharan Africa are a different story.

There's a contempt, from the people who want everything done, as soon as possible, about global warming for the people who oppose their proposals. I can understand it, I feel the same way about anyone who tries to shine the light of reality on my own personal love of manned space exploration and colonization.

Just like I see a time of space stations, bases in the clouds of Neptune, and ships that travel hundreds of thousands of miles a day, as utopic (if not a true utopia); they see a time of clean energy and no global warming as idyllic. "Everything would be perfect, if only..."

It's bullshit, of course. Neither my dream nor theirs will result in anything but different forms of angst, depredation, and strife.

The only difference is, in my dream, if Earth were to suddenly- unexpectedly- blow up, all of humanity wouldn't perish in the blast.

My point is, the proactive responders to global warming are fooling themselves. They want a fundamental change, across the spectrum, and they're willing to go to any ends, regardless of how much they have to ignore, to get what they want because they think it will make the world better for their kids, or their kids' kids.

I have no idea how to save the planet from this "menace". My knee-jerk reaction is "get a new planet, and we've got a spare should one get ruined"; but that's not likely to happen. Reducing carbon emissions, so that everything gets more expensive, and those at the bottom die off a little more... it's not going to change anything.

It's the difference between keeping Terry Schiavo alive, or pulling the plug: Either way she dies, the only question is dignity.

I mean, in reality, how often do huge, fundamental changes, across the spectrum, actually happen. And when they do, how long does it take before we all realize that there are new/other problems the change didn't solve?
Read More...

Mallard Fillmore, the Right, and the Prius.

I thought Mallard Fillmore was a political commentary comic strip; recently, I've been reminded it is a right-wing political commentary comic strip. Obvious political bias, especially when it's lame ass rehashings of party talking points from months ago- like today's strip in The Huntsville Times, in which Obama is lambasted for kicking a reporter off his plane during the campaign. Have we forgotten that kicking reporters off planes is somewhat standard practice? Have we forgotten that Bush did it, Clinton did it, McCain did it, and others have surely done it? Generally, though, it irritates me to see anyone lambasting the president-elect for things he should/shouldn't/could do once he's the President. It's childish, it's counting the chickens before the baskets hatch from the eggs, and it's stupid. Let the motherfucker fuck up before we roast his ass. Why artificially concoct bullshit, now? How many infallible politicians do we have in this country that so many people are scared if they don't constantly throw mud there will come a time when mud throwing isn't allowed/wanted?

The Right of US's political divide has been pissing me off, more than usual, lately. First, the talking heads that squawk on and on about how "this recession isn't any worse than any before it", or how "[some financial thing] doesn't need to be further regulated", or how other countries are blaming the US, entirely, for the current world woes. That last isn't a "right-wing" thing per se, but it fits in the general theme, and that's good enough for me. (Though, I'll deal with it separately later). First, the average length of a Recession since WWII: 8-10 months. Current length of this Recession: 12 months, and counting. Last time we were in a recession that lasted this long? Either the early 90s or the early 80s depending on if you take into account "depth" and to whom you listen.

Once again, this world wide problem came about in a number of ways. Partly, the US economy has been bolstered over the last 5-8 years by debt, as has most of the world's economy. In fact, modern economics is the manipulation of debt- in a very real way. There was a huge glut of global money looking for a place to be invested. The first place it found was gas. Oil always goes up, just like the value of a house, or so the wisdom went. The only negative had been how slow those rising values happened, but the global pool of money didn't want risk, so slow growth was seen as the perfect solution. This led to rising fuel costs as futures were invested in, and demand from the emerging economies of China, Brazil and Russia far outpaced supply. Investment + Demand = Skyrocketing Oil value.

At the same time, two things were happening in the financial sectors of the US, the UK, and several other countries with large, valuable, housing markets. First, growth was steady and rising, and seen as reliable and safe. Second, Credit Default Swaps- unregulated, non-transparent, financial instruments handled exclusively by large financial institutions- became a source of speculation, instead of a sort of insurance policy on low risk bonds. Technically, these things happened first, as they started in the late 90s and early 00s; but the problems snowballed when fuel costs ran rampant.

The financial obligations of CDS's spread risk, and investment in debt, over huge swaths of the financial industry, by linking bond payouts. A Credit Default Swap being an obligation to pay out on a company's bond if that company should default- these were then "netted", causing there to be (basically) 50-60 trillion US$ of obligated insurance on 5 trillion US$ worth of bonds. Bonds, CDS's, fuel futures, all of it is betting on debt, and the repayment of that debt.

The housing market was primed for some of that huge pool of global money. It was already seeing returns from oil futures, and experts understood that those returns were going to slack off as gas prices climbed higher, causing consumers to cut back. In other words, the growth of that sector was forecast to plateau. This made investors hungry for more of the overwhelming growth they had been experiencing and grown accustomed to; and the only other market with slow steady growth was housing.

The problem with housing was that it grew based on the debt in the system. When a homebuyer gets a loan, his debt enters the system as a mortgage, and can be bought up. Bundle a bunch of those debts together and it's a Mortgage Backed Security- another financial instrument, like a bond or CDL, and like them based solely on debt. Mortgages default on a regular basis, always have. If each person had a base 10% chance to default, bundled mortgages of 10 people had a 100% chance that one of them would go bad. But the other 9 wouldn't, statistically. That's safer than buying one mortgage, where if it goes bad your investment is shot. It's even safer to buy up 1,000 where 100 will probably go bad, but 900 will make their payments back to you.

Seems simple and straight forward, right?

The problem was lack of consumer protections. Think about this: according to the Bell Curve, if you're above the median intellect (and if you're reading this, it's a safe assumption that statement is true) the majority of people are dumber than you. That's understandable, of course, you encounter many morons in your day-to-day. The additional fact is, though, that someone dumber than you, but also above median, is smarter than the majority of people. Imagine that guy or gal, and then imagine the person behind him. Call that person "X".

The banks knew they could make large profits off bundling mortgage loans together and "selling" them to investors. The more loans they made, the more bundles they could sell. Lawmakers, at the time, knew such deals would improve the economy, and in times of plenty those in power stay there. Lawmakers encouraged the businesses; and the Businesses, not really needing encouragement to make every cent they could, happily ran full steam ahead. Banks gave out more and more loans, ignoring previously held economic principles on "acceptable risk". Meanwhile, they were also obligated to pay off potential debts, through CDSs.

Our freindly dumbass "X" gets told that it doesn't matter how much he makes, what his credit history is, he can "HAVE THE AMERICAN DREAM!" and own a house. "X" is also being told, by popular entertainment, it's easy to "flip a house" and make some quick cash. "X" knows he's smarter than most- who isn't? - and he goes to his bank. The Bank doesn't check his credit history, they don't check his employment history, they give him a mortgage and sell it down the line before "X" has left the building. "X" has seen on the paper how his payment is only $500/mo, whereas his apartment payment was $550/mo (he lived in the cheapo roach infested shit apartments). He goes to his nice house, makes the payments for a month or two, and then something happens. His variable rate mortgage causes his interest rate to adjust higher and his payment to go up to $550/mo. Well, he managed that before, and he can do it again- but gas is up to $3 a gallon from $2 a gallon when he lived in his apartment. He's paying bills late, but still paying, then the rate jumps again and he's paying $600/mo and gas is at $4/gal and projected to hit $5/gal soon. He starts missing payments. The rate goes up "X" gets more and more behind and forecloses because he was fooled and a fool. When he bought the house, he could pay for it; and the Bank man assured him the rate wouldn't adjust for a year or two or more and it wouldn't adjust by much. Unfortunately, it adjusted twice in six months and adjusted by more than a point each time.

So now, the default rate is 20% instead of 10%. That hurts, and causes some companies to issue more bonds to cover immediate cash needs, but everything is stable. The lenders have already lent to everyone remotely worth lending. The Housing market follows oil and plateaus. Except, the lenders haven't stopped lending. The stupid people agree to loans they couldn't POSSIBLY afford; and the greedy businesses continue to make more loans and sell them to global investors because they can pull in hundreds of thousands (instead of hundreds of millions, but still good money, right? Right? RIGHT!?! AMIRITE!!111). Finally, one too many people default.

A solid company, invested in low risk markets like oil and housing starts to issue more bonds to cover some of its debt. Those bonds get insured by CDSs and those CDSs are covered by further CDSs. The solid company becomes shaky, more bonds, fewer CDSs- but more profitable for CDS speculators (so long as the compnay doesn't collapse, and it's been stable for 200 years, it would NEVER coll...). One too many defaults and the company collapses inside 6 months of being stable. Now those CDSs come up.

The company that went under had CDSs on some other companies. Some of those companies, less historically firm, have hit their one too many mark and crashed as well. Now, CDSs are being called in. The money isn't there. Yadda Yadda Yadda, Today.

That's where we find ourselves, and there's a single simple perpetrator. A slimy, greasy, suspect, motherfucker, who deserves nothing but our contempt, our hatred, and our rage. The perpetrator is: Damn-near-every-fucking-body. Greedy Businesses, Stupid and Greedy People, Government Regulators, Politicians, Banks, Investors, everybody. It's not a US problem, it's not a Europe Problem. It's a World Market Problem. The reason it's a World Market Problem, is because- and correct me if I'm wrong- WE'RE A GLOBAL ECONOMY! Everyone's business is intertwined with everyone else's. If shit goes south in Japan in the 90s, it hurts us here, if it hurts us, it hurts Europe, if it hurts Europe it hurts Asia, guess where Japan is? Asia, a part of the world you MAY have heard of...

The Prius has taken a hit- one down, now if iAnything would be shown, conclusively, to cause ovaries development in men and cancer in anyone with ovaries I'd be able to smile once in a while. November sales for the Prius have dropped 48%, according to Toyota. Everyone's blaming the dramatic fall in gas prices from $4/gal back to ~$1.60/gal. Uhm... I have a thought on this... could it be... maybe.. that we're in a RECESSION? Could it be that people are losing their jobs, scared of losing their jobs, still nervous from how $4/gal gas came outta nowhere [Mention Peak Oil and I'll hunt you down, remove your sexual characteristics with a rusty spoon, and force you to watch Maddow, or O'Reilly, while listening to "It's a small world" on infinite loop.], hurt from the loss of 50% of their retirement plan's value, and in a million other ways not buying $40k cars? Show me 1 single car over, let's say $20k that hasn't seen a drop from last year. I'd bet, you can't. And I'd bet that the more expensive the car, the bigger the drop in sales. Gas being "cheap", if it has ANYTHING to do with it, is probably not responsible for more than 3% of the decline, I'd bet. (Complete supposition there, based on how "environmentally" conscious everyone got when they could afford to be................. ahem........) . . . . . .................. . . ................. . . . . . . . . . . . . . ...
Right.

One last thing: Nade-off-with-the-money. First off, Jewish people who say they have it rough in Florida should be forced to have it exactly as rough as they try to say. Secondly, British Cry Babies who boo-hoo American Regulation should try and think before they speak. American Regulators fucked up, they were warned about this douche bag a couple times, sure. Yet, I keep coming abck tot eh NPR interview I heard with a money manager who had decided not to invest with the guy. The Manager said if the person controlling the money isn't willing to tell us how he's making his profits, we're not willing to trust him with our money. He also said that consistent 1% monthly growth was unreasonable. In other words, He said "We use common fucking sense, and so we didn't get burned by this shithead." The fact that the guy is Jewish and a lot of Jewish investors and Charities got swindled, that means nothing. He didn't target them for being Jewish, he's a fucking criminal and saw a mark.

The thing that should be talked about, isn't the 50 billion he screwed people out of, it's how extremely rare is such a con-job. A year ago in France, this same sorta fraud happened for $7 billion. One person was saying that this wouldn't be the last fraud. Hedge Funds are, like the CDSs that spread the financial crises out from US housing and across markets/the world, sorely lacking in regulations.

"But regulation is bad."

The regulations I am a HUGE proponent of, are TRANSPARENCY and DISCLOSURE. You want a free market? Okay, open your books. Your system of correctly guessing isn't a trade secret. It's a system of guessing. Research can make the guessing more accurate, more likely to make money; but it's still guessing. Fuck you, show us EVERYTHING.

And that goes for all financial EVERYTHINGS. Show us the money. Where is it? Who is promised to? How's it being made? Account for where it is currently!

Accountability, Transparency, Disclosure. If they don't have them, don't do business with 'em. And you, Jewish or Gentile, won't get bilked. Read More...

Obama's Change

Part of me wants to say "Leave Obama Alone!" The more savy of you should see an image of a whiny emo fucktard shitbag, mascara running, hands to red cheeks, crying, and screaming at you from the youtube. And that's an apt picture, because that's where the sentiment comes from: the whiny emo shittard fuckbag piece of me. Don't laugh, you have one too; and the more you deny it, the more we're sure that's the majority of the corny jokes and old sight gags, and favored talking-head recitations, you try to call a personality.

"Obama's recycling Clintonians. That's not change!" some people shout. Yet, Obama never specified what change he would usher in, as he is a good politician and therefore vague/ambiguous/disingenuous/whathaveyou. Clintonians are a change from the overwhelming flood of insane business, and social, conservatives Bush has coddled to his presidential teat. They're not a change, too, for obvious reasons.

The more thoughtful piece of me, that part that those of you who know me personally hate- because it won't leave anything alone, and demands I seek out more information about it- makes me consider other possibilities. This is the piece that makes me think the guy who couldn't feel his hand probably has either upper neck and shoulder trouble or very high back problems, or both. This is the piece that makes me comment on everything, as a way of trying to "sound it out", understand it fully, "grok" it for those Heinlein fans among you.

First, I consider that President-elect Obama has had his hand forced because of the economic problems helped along by Bush's "deregulation", "no government interference in the free market", and inability to fundamentally understand key concepts about reality, like calling a group of people- or their concerns- the "reality based" initiative/movement is the exact opposite of a derogatory comment. (Note that it was meant as such, and many took it to be so). Also, take care to read my wording, I said helped, not caused. Clinton and the demo-prats helped it along too; but I would like to throw back some comments I heard early in Bush II (pt1).

When the economy tanked in the early part of this decade, it was blamed on Clinton. Clinton's mismanagement caused that mini recession, due to his appointments, etc etc; and it couldn't be Bush's fault because he'd only been president for less than a year. Many people agreed that, if a president's policies could effect the economy it would be at the end of his term into the next president's. Ahem... well... Eight years after Bush's start we see where we are on that score.

But that's tangential, really. Obama's Change is the point of this- seeing as that's the title, it's sorta neat, AMIRITE?!?!!1 Maybe it's not the economic pressures that are forcing his hand, that made him run to tried and true and keep Gates- for the moment. Maybe he was lying about real change, and just wanted his demo-pratic cronies, instead of the repulican'ts currently in Washington. That is, at least, what I suspect some people are saying/thinking.

And that's the real issue, to me. Did he "intentionally mislead"? Did he lie? I'd say we'll know in 8 years. Not that Obama is ensured a second term, he's not- especially if the economy remains in the tank. But that will put us at the end of his presidency or four years after, and we;ll have a bit more perspective. For every thing someone may point to as evidence of their side (he's lying/he's not), there's one on the other, as well.

It comes down to, as so many things seem to, interpretation. Interpretation is a very touchy kind of thing. The Austrian Economists will tell you that Alphabet Agencies caused the Great Depression to be longer. It was reported in my local newspaper some time ago as fact. What they won't tell you is that Austrian Economics are an interpretation with their own problems. Interpretation is a very subjective experience, it asks a person to take some (at its best) facts and jiggle them around inside their dinkum-thinkums until an answer plops out. That is the essence of interpretation, and the EXACT reason anything that is concluded due to interpretation should be viewed with suspicion, and taken with a grain of salt.

There are interpretations that can be trusted, rather easily, too. These would be include such scientifically accepted ideas as the Theory of Relativity. Theory, sorta, means it's an interpretation of the way the universe works; BUT as a scientific theory, it also means there has been objective testing done that confirms predictions made by the theory. Take evolution: it's a theory not because it's unprovable; but because we can't actually go back and see evolution take place. Other than that one detail, it makes predictions, all of them have been true, and the only thing that is currently disputed is the mechanisms of how it happens (not if it happens- which it does).

Obama is going to be watched 24/7 in a way that other president's have not. Clinton felt some of this, with the dawnings of the internet, Bush got more of it, as the internet (and the blogosphere) really prospered [despite some of the laws that went into effect under him]. Yet, Obama is the first black president- or will be on January 20th (depends totally on when you read this). Add the economic crisis, that's been here since December 2007, and the changing status of America in a world/superpower context, add Obama's commitment to be the most wired presidency yet; and you're starting to get the picture.

When people tell me Obama is just another huckster bullshit artist politician, I squint at them, and try to make sure I'm seeing them clearly. There's only two types of people that seem to truly believe it- and a third that loves to say it: (1) the true believer, who thinks only the Repulican'ts are capable of really truly running America "well", (2) The cynical jackass who really and truly hates when anyone else is happy/optimistic/not-a-jackass, (3) The Vacuous idiot, or chicken little douchebag, who is simply spouting the verbal diarrhea of the talking-head they jerk-off to the most.

I'm not saying "Give Obama a chance". Fuck it, if you've already made up your mind, let me know- so I can ignore you for the next four years. What I am saying is, it's too early to tell, yet. Know how you can tell THAT? Because he's not even the president- not until January 20, 2009. There's a saying that every one of you has heard, and it's apt here; it's about eggs and baskets. Obama might only be a change because of his skin color, which would be the saddest thing, in my opinion; but even if that does prove to be the case, it's still change, and that means he didn't completely lie. Read More...

What I'm Seeing

I know everyone has to work, and do dishes, and pay taxes, and die; and all the other things that keeps them from reading and hearing all the different valid opinions out there; so I thought I'd compile a listing of some things about Obama that I'm seeing today.

(And why the hell is the embedded spell-checking hitting Obama as misspelled?)

Charlie Stross- English SF author- on Obama is a conservative and California's Prop 8, and why HE would have voted for him. (I'll note, because he took pains to make sure it happened this way, that he did not announce who he would have voted for until after the polls were closed).

PZ Meyers- noted atheist, biologist, professor, and blogger- on Obama's real challenge (and that he's conservative/centrist), and further context explanation of the original.

And, the ever present reality- punctuated by booing McCain supporters during the concession speech (maybe?): (via ModBlog by way of Warren Ellis)


I almost want to say that the things to do/focus on are watching who is picked as what for the admin; seeing if any bullshit comes from the Obama Camp like when Bush's admin accused the Clintons and their staff of stealing valuable pieces of art and furniture; relaxing because it's all over until Jan 20, 2009; and/or that the elections went smoothly, it was all very professional- and quick- and that McCain made a great speech as did Obama, neither deviating from basically expected prose.

However, I'm not that "bright and cheery message" guy. Instead, go look at Suburban Panic, Fafblog!, and WarrenEllis.com they all have funny, irreverent, or intentionally worrisome shite for you to waste away your days upon... Read More...

Think Globally, Take it in the Pooper Locally!

Politics. Ah fuck, right? Wrong. Sit back down and read the whole fucking thing, or I will personally fantasize about all the sick twisted shit I'd never do to you unless you thought I wasn't capable of it and didn't hear me creeping up behind you, right this very second. That's right, just keep reading...

So, Democratic (Yeah, that's right, bitches) Representative Bud Cramer is out. He's the Congressman from Alabama's 5th District- because we don't have many people in the state(~4.5m), but we have towns (Birmingham) with bigger populations than Alaska- which includes Huntsville. His replacement fuck-ups are Wayne Parker (R) and Parker Griffith (D).

First, here are the issues for Huntsville, which means they're the issues for the vast majority of people in district 5, Defense spending, guns, anti-gays, and defense spending. It's prime Republican territory, and our Democratic representatives tend to be D in name more than policy. (Keeping the Dixiecrat tradition alive? Maybe; but not quite). Defense Spending is huge because of Redstone Arsenal, which is home to Space and Missile Defense Command. 85% of Missile components for the US military go through Huntsville at some point in time. [As an aside: Huntsville is the smartest city in the country. Per capita there are more PhDs here than anywhere else in the US; and this is LARGELY due to the above command and related industries.]

Second, the Candidates:
Wayne Parker - lost to Cramer in 1994 by less than 2000 votes, then lost by an asston in 1996. He was a lobbyist for two Alabama interest groups, for 5 years, and NEITHER of them remember him. In response to questions one referred to him as "this guy", as in "Someone told me this guy did some lobbying for us." Both groups said they didn't even recognize his name! Plus, back in 1994 he said Defense Spending wasn't important for Huntsville and that he thought they could cut some jobs and spending out on Redstone Arsenal. (Remember: Huntsville doesn't exist without Redstone. This is so much the case, that I have an unnerving {somewhat irrational} dislike for Goddard Space Flight Center because a lot of projects from here get yanked and thrown there).

Parker Griffith - Ex-Oncologist {Cancer Doctor, for both of you who don't watch House}, current freshman Dem in State Congress (since 2006). "A" rated by the NRA, doesn't support gay marriage, and says as a Christian he "knows where our values come from". This is the Democrat. THE FUCKING DEMOCRAT!

The facts:
Parker is attacking Parker (That's Wayne v Griffith) because Parker (that's Griffith) was reported by Huntsville Hospital (about as evil a charitable organization as can be) and forced out of their oncology center. Apparently some people thought Griffith (that's Parker) was withholding medication to ease the pain of his cancer patients. There was a report made, which found no fault, malpractice, nor justifiably actionable offense on the part of Parker (that's Griffith, like Andy- who supports Obama, which is possibly how and why PG is a Democrat). So, Parker (that's Wayne) has been running shit on the air, backed MASSIVELY by the GOP's financing committees, about how Parker's (that's Griffith's) patients were horribly abused. {Good place to note that the first version of the ad had to be yanked because it was illegal- it was inaccurately citing and referencing the report. 2 of the 3 local stations it was airing on yanked it until it was redone in accordance with FUCKING COMMON 11th GRADE Essay ACCURACY, not to mention decency. Oh, an Kudos Channel 19 for being douches and refusing to pull the ad, because irrationally justifying slander/libel from one side over the other is a great way to encourage accurate reporting and some modicum of journalistic "balance", Station Owners}.

Full understanding of what that report REALLY meant, and why Griffith (that's Parker) was forced out, would entail a long diatribe about Huntsville Hospital. I am already in mid-long-diatribe and will refrain from further tangential bullshitting, other than to say: Huntsville Hospital is HUGELY political, and it has the smack of standard HH politics (i.e. been done before to other docs, administrators, board members, etc etc).

Currently, Parker (Griffith) is trying his damndest to get past this Torture-Doctor shite (look at his forcongress.com website), while continuing to attack Wayne Parker for being a stupid fucking lobbyist scumbag. Parker (that's Wayne) may have this sewn up, It's hard to tell.

The point is, though, that we have (supposedly) TWO candidates: Parker & Parker. But, with very little difference, according to their campaign materials, it's like voting for the the lesser half of the same fucking evil. It'd be like saying "I voted Bush Cheney '04 because, though I hate Cheney and Bush, I like Bush's legs. I can TRUST Bush's legs not to capitulate to terrorists, or fuck our economy up so bad it sends us into a global recession; and it's not like EITHER of them had anything to do with the TREASONOUS act of OUTING an UNDERCOVER CIA operative still on ACTIVE status. Nope, I just like those reassuringly chiseled calf muscles..."

In point of fact, this isn't likely the case. Look at Parker's (that's Griffith, Wayne has never held elected office) voting records and you'll see he's a fairly reliable democrat. He, apparently, is a socially conservative moderate democrat. Running against the guy who said, on the local TV debate, that he'd abolish the Department of Education. Parker (that's Griffith) has hit him HARD on that, listing the DoE's contribution to every school system in the 5th District- which is tens of millions of dollars. HOWEVER, it's obvious from his answers that Parker (that's Wayne) is likely a young earth creationist and Intelligent Design advocate. Parker (that's Wayne) really really really wants you to have to learn about God in Science class. Because we wouldn't want you to learn fucking SCIENCE in science class, we're only 24th of 14 developed countries surveyed in science! (See? If you'd fucking FUND the DoE instead of abolishing it, and stop trying to fuck with science education, I might know the sample size had to be bigger than 14 if we were 24th, and YOU might know that I was being facetious, or what that big fancy word meant!)

I hate having to vote for these schmucks. Parker Griffith shouldn't be ashamed at being A rated by the NRA, but he shouldn't pander so heavy-handedly, either. It's disgraceful, and his campaign is making him look like a republican in all but name. This is, probably, calculated; but it very well could mean I vote Independent and if I'm doing that, it could mean other swing votes are doing that. Wayne Parker is indistinguishable from a fool, a lobbyist, and an idiot. At the present time, it would be increasingly difficult to prove that Wayne Parker isn't the biggest piece of shit to ever try to lie, cheat, deceive, stupid (as the verb), and generally appeal to Palin-conservatives, his way into the AL-05. THAT is why I may actually NOT throw my vote away, and give it to the lesser side of the two evils (and his fairly reliable, intelligent, non-discriminatory voting record in the state Senate).

It's a disgusting election, this, and if I wasn't a horribly opinionated, atheist, skeptic, with no money, breeding, education, or worth I'd fucking run for this seat myself in four years and show these assholes that an intellectually honest, non-dogmatic, candidate can beat their dicks in with barely any money and only a spot at locally televised debates. Alas, how much better the world if my dreams- but not yours, yours are all creepy to us and really conveying that creepiness was the whole point of this post, thanks for reading through to it, and stop masturbating on the gerbils, now- were reality...

UPDATE: Just glanced at the newspaper for today, and see the CHRISTIAN COALITION has decried Wayne Parker's "Islam Ad" the headline reads "You need to win on the issues". I have not seen this ad (Not surprising since I watch little TV and when I do the channel tends to have B or MSN before the BC), nor read the story yet; more after lunch... Read More...

Time to Talk

It's time we had a little talk. We're friends, right? And we can say, to each other, whatever we're thinking, right? This is a no-judging zone, right? Because we're friends. Good, good...

I know Chris Rock, Martin Lawrence, and anyone else trying to legitimize anger over historical wrongs, and some modern hardships, has been telling you how there's a difference between "white people" and "black people"; but you do see they're getting paid to say that shit, right? Of course you do.

How many black presidents do there have to be before we can just drop this whole "I'm being treated differently based on the color of my skin" thing? Oh, settle down, I'm not talking about completely. I know there're some racist fucks still out there. I know there are still some people who distrust others on the color of their skin. There are still people who think "race" wasn't something we made up out of whole cloth. But, I mean in general. I mean, when can we stop the "I'm being singled out" defense for non-specific incidents?

Because isn't it racist to claim it when it's not true?
And does a black President mean it's time to address some of this last-generation, and before, bullshit that's only left over because the old hateful dinosaurs won't hurry the fuck up and die?

Or does even talking about this out loud, as a white devil (in the words of the Nation of Islam), mean I'm somehow racist?

Glad we could have this chat... Read More...

McCain's Latest Bullshit

So, as anyone paying attention has heard, this morning Colin Powell- one of, if not the, most popular people in American Politics today, still- has endorsed Obama. What did McCain have to say? "I've been friends with Colin Powell for a long time..." trying to associate his name with the popular dissenter, thereby lessening the effect of Powell's recriminations of a campaign that's so negative the same neo-con pundits telling McCain to go this way a few weeks ago, are begging him to go back to the affable McCain of '00. But that's par for the course in politics, trying to lessen the damage of a popular dissenter.

What shocked me, was McCain's immediate follow-up: Kissinger, Baker, Hague, and the fourth Stooge, all former Secretaries of State, support him. WHAT?!?! You're proud of that? Like we need more proof you're completely out of touch!

McCain told Fox News (of course) "Dracula, Frankenstein, and the Wolfman" are behind him. Like sewing up the old white war-criminal vote is cause for relief! Kissinger: war criminal, just ask Christopher Hitchens. Baker: one of the geniuses behind Iraq War I, and the current travesty of a sequel. Haig: "I'm in control", and if that's not enough (from wikipedia): "A military hawk, Haig caused some alarm with his suggestion that a "nuclear warning shot" in Europe might be effective in deterring the Soviet Union." Eagleburger: Never heard of him? He's such a minor figure wikipedia only offers two sentences about his time as Sec of State: that he was appointed after Baker went to handle re-election and he was put on in a recess appointment.

Haig and Eagleburger are old Kissinger flunkies, and Baker is only a factor in politics because of George Dub's daddy. How was that, Senator? You're not WHO again?

It's disappointing, I really like McCain back in '00, before Rove's boyz got their hooks in him. Back when he really cared about his message and what he had to say. Back before he'd decided cozying up the Rep base was more important than honesty. It's a sad day, when such a truly amazing man is such a horrible caricature of who we all knew he once was.

And just so you don't think I'm just picking on McCain, lemme clue you in on something, right now. If McCain loses, and the only way he won't is if Dems and new voters get complacent and don't flood the polls like they're projected to do, there's gonna be some talk about some things. No, I don't mean the bullshit Republican speil that ACORN and other "nefarious" organizations have committed massive voter fraud be- shock of shocks- allowing poor people to vote!

There's going to be a discussion about if McCain could have changed the Republican party. He was a moderate- fuck he might still be, underneath all the base-pandering bullshit he's been doing in his general campaign. He had chastised Republicans on several issues- though if siding with your own party 90% of the time makes you a Maverick, there's not many who aren't. He could, conceivably pull the Republicans away from this evangelical bullshit and back to the fiscally conservative, small government, socially moderate, Republicans we all like to remember fondly.

The problem is, it's not likely. Sure, maybe he could do it if he got elected to his SECOND term; but his first- with 18 months of governing before the mid-terms- isn't going to be especially maverick-y and gee-golly new. It's going to be that 90% time, not that 10% time. But that won't stop the discussions. I've already heard it mentioned once; don't be surprised if it's talked about more, especially if Obama wins and that somehow keeps the evangelicals in power. (Don't think they're dumb enough to hold on after a resounding reprimand from the American People? Remember these are the people who STILL think Bush is doing a GOOD job.)

The Republicans have shown their true colors, in my opinion. Over the past 8 years, we've seen aggressive roll backs on corporate punishments, corporate oversight, and corporate restrictions. We've seen aggressive tax cuts that significantly help the richest 1%, who control more wealth than the poorest 50%. And to top it all off, there was increased defense spending the WHOLE time, roll-back of civil rights (outting Valerie Plame, wire-tapping, torture, etc etc). Now, they're telling everyone that anyone in a big city isn't American- even though the majority of the 300 million+ people in America live in a BIG CITY! They've chosen a hypocritical, rabidly anti-environment oil lobbyist evangelical, married to a pro-secessionist, as a hideous way of trying to re-brand themselves "modern"; and they've turned one of their absolute best into a horribly miserly, asshat who is barely worthy of respect.

Fucking pathetic. If there was anyway to split them into the Libertarian Party and Hezbollah (remember, that means: Party of God), I'd gladly do it. At least, then you could hope someone as worthy of respect as McCain might actually be worthy of the vote he won't be getting. Read More...

Individualism

Individualism seems to already be taken. That's unfortunate, what else would you call someone who is opposed to context loading people based on trivia- such as: skin color, nationality, gender, beverage preference?

I propose any of the following: Smart, Not-Retarded, Genius, Brilliant, Asshole-but-Right, Smarter, Smartest, Smart-ist, Fucking Smart, okay? Do you get it, yet?

Branding is always a problem. Dawkins, for instance, proposes a branding of atheism similar to the context change of the label "gay" that came about in the 1980s and 90s. He's got a point, about changing contexts, and how it changes general reactions. It seems obvious, to me. (Just so we're clear: the adoption of "Brights" never seemed all that 'bright' to me.)

So, instead of adding another arbitrary label, I have found a new name for my ideal: people. Acceptable substitutes include "person", "persons", "human", "humans", "homo sapiens", et cetera.

I am a People. A Person. A human. And fuck you, you are too. Read More...

Misogyny/Misandry is Stupid

I oppose feminism because, though it has worthy ideals, I think it promotes genderism.

Misogyny and Misandry are both, equally, stupid.

I submit that most of these problems extend from the concept of "hierarchy"; which is not a new idea. Another idea that isn't new is that religion is where hierarchy gets its legitimacy.

Hierarchy is, basically, the idea that somethings are inherently better, or worse, than some other things. It's the idea that opinion is factual.

You like bananas more than apples? That'd be because bananas are better than apples; not just some personal preference. How could anyone not see that bananas are better than apples? Do bananas have poisonous cyanide in them? No! That's because bananas are better than apples.

Hierarchy, in my opinion, is something inherent to the human species. It's inherent to most species of mammal. Wolves resolve into hierarchal packs, so do most- if not all- primates. It's one of those things that children get without being taught. Evolutionarily it probably helped out an ass-ton. Unfortunately, it just leads to problems, now; and like selfishness- another "instinctual" behavior of children- it should be conditioned against.


Religion, however, reinforces this. Catholics think Protestants have it wrong. Sunnis argue against Shiites. Orthodox Jews disagree with Reformist Jews. Theravada or Mahayana? Shaivism or Smartha? Gardenarian or Odyssean? LeVayan or Theistic? This one or That one?

The point is that, regardless of open warfare, one says it is right and the other is wrong. It never just accepts that it's all bullshit kept over from the infancy of our species. Let me focus on Christianity and Wicca, the two I'm most familiar with.

Some denominations of Christianity do not suggest that followers of other denominations aren't going to goto heaven, or are in any way bad. However, they do disagree about translation or interpretation. Suggesting that one translation/interpretation of dubious documents is correct. That would make the others "wrong". Wrong, as we all know, is never as good as Correct.

Wicca is even easier to illustrate. Though it may have changed now- nearly ten years since I paid attention- Gardenarians were once strictly opposed to anyone who was "Solitary". In order to become a person of status inside the tradition, one had to be accepted into an accepted coven. A lot of other Traditions had their own ways of gaining internal status- the smarter ones, in my opinion, being those that recognized how often Wiccans were/are solitary practitioners.

Religion reinforces the idea that PERSONAL OPINION conveys MEASURABLE DIFFERENCE.

So does nationality, the idea of "race", and other phenomena. But which one is oldest? Religion loves to parade its age around; like being from a time when people thought farts were an indication of possession makes you fucking smart.

I ask you a different way: Which causes more strife, world wide, today? Religious Wars or Wars of Nationality or Political Wars? (Examples: Jihad against America or Germany's insane Nationalistic view which is oft cited as a reason for WWII or The Cold War, respectively) Which one, throughout history?

It's complex, sure. The Nazis were out to destroy the Jews, too. Many religious wars are fought for what seems to be political reasons. Isn't Nationalism just a form of Politics?

But it all comes back to Hierarchy. That is the problem.

Individualists, in my opinion, should fight against hierarchy. The problem is: it can be useful. Too many Generals giving different orders only leads to chaos. "Too many cooks spoil the pot".

But, there are definite time when Hierarchy is reprehensible: genderism, sexualityism, racism, et cetera.

Let's worry about how to balance usefulness with uselessness. Keep your religion private. Who fucking cares about which Political Party you support? You skin color is simply the macroscopic effect of chemicals in your epidermis. Your ancestry is only important to you, and your family, and should be shameful to discuss in public. Your nationality simply refers to where on the planet you live, which language(s) you are more likely to speak, and what political system you live under.

I say: Rail against the dying of the individual.
I say: Fight against chance and circumstance as defining forces.
I say: Be an Individual, and let everyone else do the same.

The greatest idea that has ever come out of the United States is best put as:
"The right to swing my fist ends where the other man's nose begins." - Oliver Wendell Holmes, Jr. (frmr Associate Justice of the Supreme Court of the United States)
Read More...

Why?

I've been reading a lot of feminist essays recently. I particularly look for things about feminism that are not about feminism itself. Ideally, feminism is simply about stopping oppression; and essays to that effect are easily agreeable. Essays about the modus operandi of feminism often frustrate, annoy, or anger me. I tend to agree with Post-feminist movements, rather than the so-called Second and Third Waves. I look for things like: Women in Refrigerators. This is, sort of, a discussion of what something may mean, if it means anything. It involves people's conceptions- projecting their thought processes. I find that interesting, and easier to remember as opinion.

I, also, actively seek discussion with non-professional feminists. I am, often, guilty of taunting them, which is bad manners- but nothing more. (Bad Manners is its own topic, for later). However, I run into a lot of elitism, faulty logic, basic philosophy, credulity, and ignorance.

For instance: (from WiR, linked above, Joan Hilty's Response):
You only need to have the faintest grasp of feminist or semiotic theory to know that it's not just how often [death, sexual abuse, and other heinous acts against woman-kind is] done, it's HOW it's done and TO WHOM certain things are done. The sexually violent visual language of how these women get killed is remarkably consistent. Really, the larger reality is that American mainstream comics, built by guys for guys on the crumbling foundations of superhero fantasy, remain intensely hostile to women, consciously and subconsciously. As political and cultural landscapes shift and evolve worldwide and it gets harder and harder for white guys to retain their perceived right to run the world, you can see the frustration act itself out in various forms of hideous backlash -- everything from "Who Wants to Marry a Millionaire?" to Katma Tui.

I didn't know I had a right to run the world because I was white and a guy! Fuck, how do I get in on that right, failing though it may be? Did I get left out by being poor and raised in a highly matriarchal family? Shit! Fucked again, by circumstance and conspiracy!

Logical Fallacies, first: Loaded Words. Begging the Question. Straw Man. Others, but I'll limit myself to dealing with those.

Loaded Words: More like loaded phrases: "sexually violent" "these women" "consciously and subconsciously" "white guys" "right to run the world"

Are all deaths of female characters, in comics, sexually violent? And when they are, what percentage of those incidents are relevant to the story? (That is: When is it important that the character was killed/hurt in a sexually violent matter?) That's important because it'd be pretty hard to talk about rape, in the visual medium of comics, without using some "sexually violent visual language".

Are fictional characters really the same as "women"? Don't get me wrong, the treatment of fictional characters can reveal underlying psychological phenomena- I won't argue that. However, let us NEVER forget that "these women" are not real, have never been real, and do not resemble real individuals.

"White guys" is the favorite loaded word of the "oppressed minority" in America. Apparently, "white guys" are the only people capable of oppressing other people. Are comics dominated by "white guys" because of this "white guy" conspiracy to continue ruling the world? ("White guys" are the minority of persons in power throughout history, just so we're clear). Or is this simply inspiring our reflexive, media-reinforced, stereotype of old power hungry white oppressors from an era when people of different shading used different water fountains?

As a "white guy" I can say that neither me, nor any of my other "white guy" friends, have ever mistakenly thought we had a "right to run the world". Those times when, as I think everyone does, we discussed what we'd do if we DID run the world, reasoning for our rule wasn't often discussed. When that reasoning was discussed, it was never proposed that shading had anything to do with it. This is intended to shock and dismay the reader. "How could anyone think they have the right to run the world!?!"

Loaded words/phrases are there to play on the fears, insecurities, and stereotypes of the audience. They carry heavy emotional connotation. For instance: Who needs logic when you can just scare people into believing? The phrase "scare people into believing" sounds as if their choice was taken away from them and they were forced to believe.

The Straw Man is that this is all part of the conspiracy of "white guys" to perpetuate their "right to run the world". The other members of the "white guy" conspiracy have told me to assure you that NO such conspiracy exists.

(some of) The Begged Questions:
--"have the faintest grasp of feminist or semiotic theory"... Uhm...How does semiotics work into this? General Semantics? Semantics? Syntactics? Nevermind, I'll skip that bit. Why would we only need a faint grasp? Forget that, too, though. The biggest question is: Which type of feminist theory? (Post-, Second Wave, Third Wave, Other?)
--"it's HOW it's done and TO WHOM certain things are done"... Why only "certain things"? Do other "certain things" negate the first "certain things"? Most importantly, what is the generic algorithm for detection? What about "HOW it's done" reveals negative things about the "How"? What about "TO WHOM it's done" reveals negative things? Why? How?

This is just an example, of course. I think it illustrates the elitism- by denigrating one group to elevate the status of another. The faulty logic is often due to the ignorance of what logical fallacies are, and how to avoid them. The basic philosophy is that "feminism" is always a good thing because it promotes the "freeing" of an oppressed minority. However, I maintain that it does so at the expense of another group- technically the minority (just a technicality I think of as funny, not relevant). [This is different than the fight versus racism because everyone is of some "race" or another; while not everyone is female.] The credulity is many-fold: belief in a male-conspiracy, belief that anyone who opposes feminism is a misogynist, so on and so on.

This is why I oppose the furthering of "feminism"; because I think it's time we stop categorizing all the bullshit. It's time we stop fighting for this little thing or for that little thing. It's time we stop implying shit with labels. Feminism will never gain true equality without fighting the distinction in words like: "Mother" and "Father", "She/Her/Hers" and "He/Him/His". It's time to fight the context, not the language. Individualism is my theory of hating people based on their unique, individual, attributes. So what that he's Iraqi? Does he believe in bullshit? Who cares that she's a "she"? Is she a body-conscious, morally obligated, prude? There are better reasons to hate people than because of some bullshit "race" or they're a certain gender.

And trying to "rid the world of hate" is the dumbest fucking thing, ever! Read More...

Individualism, a Musing

Individualism is my new banner. Not the Individualism of Anarchy. Not the Individualism of Morality and Philosophy.

Recently, I've found myself rather disgusted with some groups. Feminists, Gay\Lesbian\Transgendered Activists, Anti-racists, and Anti-Discrimination-ists, in general. They seem rather myopic, in general; and so many seem out right hypocritical. It's sad, to me, that such noble causes are so easily dismissed because of their own bullshit.

I, as a "straight white male", am told that I am an oppressor. When I respond to hate and vitriol with hate and vitriol I am marginalized, dismissed, and generally ignored. Whatever happened to: "What's good for the goose is good for the gander"? Why the focus on labeling others, when fighting against the negative labels? Blatant Hypocrisy is stupid, childish, and- often- a sign of fallacy.


I propose getting rid of the bullshit. Destroying the crap. Admitting the objective reality, and general destruction of the myopic stupidity. There should never be a discussion of "race". It should never be a discussion about "sex". Who cares if you practice an "alternative lifestyle"? (No one should).

Everything should be about the individual. Some people are complete shit, not a redeeming quality about them. This is not something to be afraid of, it is something to be acknowledged. If a person is shitty, they should be labeled such and dealt with as such. They shouldn't be labeled shitty because their skin color is different; because of who they want to squat hump; or because they have a different set of sex chromosomes.

Each Individual should stand or fall on their own merits and flaws. Each Individual should be respected as different from all others. Most generalities concerning people, are wrong- no matter who's the target.


Are all "African Americans" "black"? Nope. Ever been to Egypt? What about 3d generation "white" South Africans who are recent immigrants?

Are all Frat Boys sexist idiot rapists? Nope. Go to a campus, talk to every single one- alone.
Rape is far too common in the United States; but if every Frat Boy was a rapist, it would be worse than the most liberal estimates.

Are all poor people lazy and/or stupid? Nope. There are many examples of famous thinkers who died unappreciated and penniless. George Orwell comes to mind, immediately; even if he may not be the best example.

Are all religious people simple-minded idiots incapable of grasping simple logic, credulity, or knowledge? Yes. Not every group is immune to criticism.

More importantly, there is a skeptical conceit of "the sacred cow". The sacred cow being something that is highly dubious, but still hard to be unemotional about and hard to give up on completely. It's okay that everyone isn't perfect. It's fine that some people are epic fails.

Individualism, then, is my idea for a realistic, unadorned, call for the destruction of discrimination- in all its forms. The acknowledgment of difference only in individuals. The breaking down of self-discrimination, and the building up of acceptance for the non-perfect other.


I am not an Irish-American Man nearing 30. I am a human. I happen to be male. I happen to live in the United States of America. I happen to be spawned from people who were spawned from people in Ireland, once upon a time. I happen to be 27, currently. I also, as it happens, need to piss and prefer sweet iced tea over most other non-alcoholic beverages. None of those facts means anything more about me than any of the others. Read More...