At some point I started going back to look at some old posts and adding the label "embarrassing archives." In the spirit of self-examination and personal growth and admitting my mistakes, I'll highlight this recent addition to my embarrassing archives. This is probably one of the most embarrassing moments of my brief fling with mainstream political liberalism. That was posted in April of 2007, but by a year later I had figured things out a bit better.
Now I'll say this. As far as paid killers go, it might be that Tillman was better than most. He seemed to value knowledge and was even willing to skeptically examine the righteousness of the cause he had given up quite a lot to fight for. That does take courage. (Hell, if he had lived he might have even come to realize that both wars were "fucking illegal" and be an active protester.) And the way his death was lied about is of course disgraceful.
But men who go fight wars of aggression aren't heroes, even if their personal character away from the battlefield is admirable, and even if they do things on a battlefield that require a certain kind of bravery, and even if they fight and die for something they believe in very strongly. Tillman could have done a lot of great things with his life (and I'm not talking about football) but he threw his life away by choosing to go fight an unjust war. I feel very sorry for him and his family on a personal human level, but I'm no longer willing to glorify his life or death. He wasn't a hero; he was a sucker.
Showing posts with label embarrassing archives. Show all posts
Showing posts with label embarrassing archives. Show all posts
Thursday, June 26, 2008
Tuesday, June 19, 2007
Awesome words revisited; Procrustean
The last time I took a serious look at what search terms lead people to this site, I noticed a large number of beard related hits. Thus, Man Beard Blog was born.
Now I'm noticing that I get a lot of hits from Google searches for "awesome words" which gives a pretty good link to a See For Yourself gimmick post that doesn't even have any words in it. This makes me think two things. (#1) I've come a long way since including a map of America there, and since my follow up on it; and (#2) I need more awesome words here. Since 99% of my posts now address that point #1, I'll get going on #2.
I don't think I'll be starting a new blog dedicated to awesome words, though I actually went through a phase a few years ago where I decided I was really into learning cool words. I bought several books of amusing or unusual words, most of which I've forgotten. But I'll never forget my all time favorite word. It derives from a Greek myth. Procrustes was a villain who would invite travelers in to his home, where he told them he had a magical bed that would fit anyone precisely. The magic of the bed was that Procrustes would chop off the victim's legs if he was too tall for the bed, or stretch him on the rack if he was too short. "Procrustean" is an awesome word meaning "marked by arbitrary often ruthless disregard of individual differences or special circumstances."
Any further commentary about the awesomeness of this word is too likely to lead back to point #1, so the post ends here.
Now I'm noticing that I get a lot of hits from Google searches for "awesome words" which gives a pretty good link to a See For Yourself gimmick post that doesn't even have any words in it. This makes me think two things. (#1) I've come a long way since including a map of America there, and since my follow up on it; and (#2) I need more awesome words here. Since 99% of my posts now address that point #1, I'll get going on #2.
I don't think I'll be starting a new blog dedicated to awesome words, though I actually went through a phase a few years ago where I decided I was really into learning cool words. I bought several books of amusing or unusual words, most of which I've forgotten. But I'll never forget my all time favorite word. It derives from a Greek myth. Procrustes was a villain who would invite travelers in to his home, where he told them he had a magical bed that would fit anyone precisely. The magic of the bed was that Procrustes would chop off the victim's legs if he was too tall for the bed, or stretch him on the rack if he was too short. "Procrustean" is an awesome word meaning "marked by arbitrary often ruthless disregard of individual differences or special circumstances."
Any further commentary about the awesomeness of this word is too likely to lead back to point #1, so the post ends here.
Wednesday, April 25, 2007
Pat Tillman was a hero
I've mentioned before that I want to write a blog entry about Pat Tillman; I've wanted to for years now. Actually I want to write a hundred blog entries about Pat Tillman, but I just can't bring myself to write about him. It is just too hard. Today I'm going to try again.
Simply, Pat Tillman was a hero.
That's a word, hero, that gets thrown around so much that it is almost devoid of meaning most of the time it is used. I'm not using that word lightly here. I think I'm using it in a way meant to convey almost the same sense as when religious people speak in wonder and awe about their personal deity. But like Pat Tillman I'm an atheist, and as people without supernatural perfect beings for inspiration, we only have principles and ideals of our own choosing. We tend to think of these ideals as pure and good and right, just as religious people think of their gods as pure and good and right. (I mention this here not to start an argument against religion as I often do, but to relate my emotions to something that maybe more people can understand.) I call Pat Tillman a hero, and he inspires a childlike sense of awe, and writing about him is so hard, because he was a man who lived up to his ideals, and died for them.
Just thinking about him in that regard is an emotionally powerful thing for me. How many people could do what he did? There are hundreds of thousands of people in the military, and this shouldn't take away from their honor, but I wonder how many of them would have given up everything that Pat Tillman gave up. This was a man who left behind what most people would consider a dream life, a hero's life - professional athletic career, wealth, fame, a beautiful wife - to fight for what he believed was right. He had everything anyone could want, and his conscience compelled him to walk away and fight for his ideals. That is what made him a hero, and what inspires such strong feeling. I'm typically not emotional on a visceral level, but I get choked up thinking about it.
Pat Tillman risked and lost his life for his ideals. And before his body was cold, terrible people began using his death as a cynical weapon against the pure and good and right ideals for which he fought.
The first part is enough to make me want to cry. The second part is enough to make me want to rip the beating hearts from the chests of the the disgusting pigs who make a mockery of the ultimate sacrifice. They are the self-serving politicians who cynically throw the word hero around to suit their political agenda, but try to destroy a real hero. They are the credulous reporters and media organizations who mindlessly and gutlessly regurgitate the politicians' propaganda and lies, and then congratulate themselves on their tremendous work. They are the parasitic pundits who collect fat checks to scream about how we're in the ultimate war to end all wars, but make no sacrifice of their own, and certainly aren't putting on a uniform. They are the soldiers who betrayed their fallen brother's memory by allowing the lies, and by insulting his family.
It is maddening to contemplate. I can't imagine that I'll ever be able to reflect calmly about Pat Tillman until Bush and his entire disgusting administration are impeached and prosecuted for their crimes; until every media outlet runs front page stories about their own pathetic failings and implements serious policies to make sure they never repeat their mistakes; until every fat pathetic pundit who cheered on the war that Pat Tillman knew was "so fucking illegal" and defended the Bush administration's inexcusable offenses has been shamed into obscurity; until every soldier who spread the lies they were ordered to spread has apologized; and until the officer who smeared the Tillman family is dishonorably discharged.
I can at least take a sliver of hope from seeing that the Tillman family continues to fight for Pat's memory. I can take a bit of hope that honorable political commentators are showing how the media has failed us. And I can take a bit of hope that the Democratic Congress is beginning to exercise some oversight of the Bush administration.
That's all I can write about it now. This is too much.
Simply, Pat Tillman was a hero.
That's a word, hero, that gets thrown around so much that it is almost devoid of meaning most of the time it is used. I'm not using that word lightly here. I think I'm using it in a way meant to convey almost the same sense as when religious people speak in wonder and awe about their personal deity. But like Pat Tillman I'm an atheist, and as people without supernatural perfect beings for inspiration, we only have principles and ideals of our own choosing. We tend to think of these ideals as pure and good and right, just as religious people think of their gods as pure and good and right. (I mention this here not to start an argument against religion as I often do, but to relate my emotions to something that maybe more people can understand.) I call Pat Tillman a hero, and he inspires a childlike sense of awe, and writing about him is so hard, because he was a man who lived up to his ideals, and died for them.
Just thinking about him in that regard is an emotionally powerful thing for me. How many people could do what he did? There are hundreds of thousands of people in the military, and this shouldn't take away from their honor, but I wonder how many of them would have given up everything that Pat Tillman gave up. This was a man who left behind what most people would consider a dream life, a hero's life - professional athletic career, wealth, fame, a beautiful wife - to fight for what he believed was right. He had everything anyone could want, and his conscience compelled him to walk away and fight for his ideals. That is what made him a hero, and what inspires such strong feeling. I'm typically not emotional on a visceral level, but I get choked up thinking about it.
Pat Tillman risked and lost his life for his ideals. And before his body was cold, terrible people began using his death as a cynical weapon against the pure and good and right ideals for which he fought.
The first part is enough to make me want to cry. The second part is enough to make me want to rip the beating hearts from the chests of the the disgusting pigs who make a mockery of the ultimate sacrifice. They are the self-serving politicians who cynically throw the word hero around to suit their political agenda, but try to destroy a real hero. They are the credulous reporters and media organizations who mindlessly and gutlessly regurgitate the politicians' propaganda and lies, and then congratulate themselves on their tremendous work. They are the parasitic pundits who collect fat checks to scream about how we're in the ultimate war to end all wars, but make no sacrifice of their own, and certainly aren't putting on a uniform. They are the soldiers who betrayed their fallen brother's memory by allowing the lies, and by insulting his family.
It is maddening to contemplate. I can't imagine that I'll ever be able to reflect calmly about Pat Tillman until Bush and his entire disgusting administration are impeached and prosecuted for their crimes; until every media outlet runs front page stories about their own pathetic failings and implements serious policies to make sure they never repeat their mistakes; until every fat pathetic pundit who cheered on the war that Pat Tillman knew was "so fucking illegal" and defended the Bush administration's inexcusable offenses has been shamed into obscurity; until every soldier who spread the lies they were ordered to spread has apologized; and until the officer who smeared the Tillman family is dishonorably discharged.
I can at least take a sliver of hope from seeing that the Tillman family continues to fight for Pat's memory. I can take a bit of hope that honorable political commentators are showing how the media has failed us. And I can take a bit of hope that the Democratic Congress is beginning to exercise some oversight of the Bush administration.
That's all I can write about it now. This is too much.
Sunday, November 19, 2006
I'm especially glad that the Democrats have control of Congress because I'm hoping it means they'll use their power to investigate the Bush administration's conduct, especially in regards to the Iraq War. But it might not matter if they do investigate:
It is worth reminding ourselves -- as the Vice President just made quite clear again-- that the pathological individuals who occupy the White House do not recognize the power of the law or the power of the courts to limit what they can do. Therefore, the fact that Democrats now control the Congress will be of little concern to them, because the most the Democrats can do is enact little laws or issue cute, little Subpoenas --- but, as the Vice President just said, they think that nothing can "tie the hands of the President of the United States in the conduct of a war." And he means that.Something I don't quite understand is why Nancy Pelosi has said that impeachment is off the table. Why would you want to take that option off the table? But I don't understand exactly how impeachment works, so maybe that's my problem.
G. Greenwald
Saturday, November 04, 2006
Corrupt Congress, I love America
Remember how I was all pissed off because Bill Frist slipped legislation about online gambling into a bill about port security? Remember how he did it at the last minute before Congress took a recess for elections so that nobody would have time to change the language, and everyone would have to vote for it because the security parts were too important to vote against?
Well maybe you can't get yourself worked up about that because you don't gamble online and you don't care if the government is acting more and more like your nanny. So how about this story (NY Times, login required, just use www.bugmenot.com) to piss you off?
There was an office in Iraq called the Office of the Special Inspector General for Iraq Reconstruction that monitored corruption in the way US funds were being used and the way contracts were awarded.
The investigations kept embarrassing the administration by uncovering the rampant corruption in Iraq, so they quietly shut it down. This is how America works. I'm swelling with patriotic pride.
Glenn Greenwald wrote:
I really hope that the Democrats win control of Congress on Tuesday, not because I have any love or even respect for their party, but because I know they'll at least be an adversary to the rampant corruption of the Republican regime that has been operating unchecked for the last 6 years.
It just makes me want to sing the national anthem.
Well maybe you can't get yourself worked up about that because you don't gamble online and you don't care if the government is acting more and more like your nanny. So how about this story (NY Times, login required, just use www.bugmenot.com) to piss you off?
There was an office in Iraq called the Office of the Special Inspector General for Iraq Reconstruction that monitored corruption in the way US funds were being used and the way contracts were awarded.
"Investigations led by a Republican lawyer named Stuart W. Bowen Jr. in Iraq have sent American occupation officials to jail on bribery and conspiracy charges, exposed disastrously poor construction work by well-connected companies like Halliburton and Parsons, and discovered that the military did not properly track hundreds of thousands of weapons it shipped to Iraqi security forces."And a couple weeks ago some huge sprawling bill was signed into law by President Bush, legislation that Congress passed without anyone bothering to read it, and it contained an obscure clause that shuts down that office and their investigations. Somebody, and nobody seems to know who, secretly slipped that provision into a bill knowing that it would never be noticed or debated.
The investigations kept embarrassing the administration by uncovering the rampant corruption in Iraq, so they quietly shut it down. This is how America works. I'm swelling with patriotic pride.
Glenn Greenwald wrote:
And goes on to point out that "A Democratic takeover of the House is the one thing that can ensure that Americans will learn of what has been done." He wrote an excellent entry a couple weeks ago on that subject:
"That is as good a snapshot as any of the incomparably destructive one-party Republican rule to which we have been subjected. This small story has virtually every element of how they function."
In my view, more than anything else, this will be the value of a Democratic takeover of at least one of the houses of Congress. As much wrongdoing as we have learned about on the part of Bush administration already, it is almost certainly the case that there is much, much more that we don't know about, but ought to.
...A Democratic takeover of one or even both houses of Congress is unlikely to result in any new affirmative legislation or policies, since their control will be by only a small margin, dependent on conservative lawmakers in their majority, and subject to a presidential veto. With some exceptions (such as the power to control appropriations and cut off funding), the real power they will have will be to investigate and expose the conduct of the Bush administration and to reveal to Americans what has really been going on.
I really hope that the Democrats win control of Congress on Tuesday, not because I have any love or even respect for their party, but because I know they'll at least be an adversary to the rampant corruption of the Republican regime that has been operating unchecked for the last 6 years.
It just makes me want to sing the national anthem.
Monday, July 24, 2006
links adspar likes 2
Here is another installment of a recurring feature, creatively titled links adspar likes. These should keep you busy with good reading material while you're bored at work, and it makes me feel productive because most of the links are educational and/or thought-provoking.
Finch Beaks Change Size, Evolutionists Ejaculate Spontaneously, "“Darwin Definitively Proven Right"”
by Emperor Darth Misha I
adspar's quick summary:
A highly-opinionated religious conservative blogger makes fun of evolution, generating hundreds of comments, many of which are among the more ignorant writing samples I've ever encountered.
why you should read it:
The original blog post is pretty damn stupid, but the comments are truly astonishing. It really seems like a gag where each commenter tries to say something stupider than the last. But what is sad and scary is that these people are completely serious. Somewhere in the mid-100s some people start defending evolution seriously, and the responses to them are truly amazing too. Basically this post has pissed me off for weeks now, so I'm sharing it with you. These are the people who vote in America.
IOKIYAC
by PZ Myers
adspar's quick summary:
A highly-opinionated godless liberal blogger discusses the role of atheism in the ongoing investigation of Pat Tillman's death. I have no idea what the letters in the title mean.
why you should read it:
Well PZ is pretty fired up about anti-atheist bigotry here, but I'm not quite sure I'd take it as far as he does. You can read the original story from ESPN to decide for yourself. I do agree that the officer sounds like he has no clue how to deal with someone who isn't a Christian. I've just always been touched by the Tillman story, and I think this was a guy who deserves to be remembered and celebrated as a true hero. And his death certainly deserves an investigator whose squeamishness about Tillman's atheism isn't so pathetically obvious.
Am I partisan? When I'’m forced to be.
by the BABlogger
adspar's quick summary:
An astronomer reluctantly embraces anti-Republican partisanship when faced with that party's seeming determination to destroy science.
why you should read it:
He shows that the South Dakota Republican party explicitly endorses creationism. The comments point out that the Texas Republican Party explicitly advocates teaching Intelligent Design as science (page 20) in schools. Are you kidding me? How can this be real? What the hell happened to our country?
"Snakes" Deplanes Critics
by Joal Ryan
adspar's quick summary:
New Line Cinema has decided not to host advance screenings of its new movie, "Snakes on a Plane," effectively keeping critics away from it.
why you should read it:
After all the rest of the heavy stuff in these links you need something light, and there is nothing lighter than a plane full of snakes. Brilliant!
The tortured "logic" of the House GOP
by Hume's Ghost
adspar's quick summary:
Discussing a bill in the House regarding the "under God" clause of the Pledge of Allegiance, the blogger shows the terrible reasoning skills of some of our elected (Republican) leaders, not to mention their fundamental lack of respect fseparationion of church and state.
why you should read it:
Question Skepticism
by Joseph j7uy5
adspar's quick summary:
A science blogger weighs in on church/state, specifically about the idea that we're a Christian nation because our founders were Christian. He also urges us not to over-simplify ideas into our impression of what someone's political agenda might be: "In the interest of clear thinking, let's keep the issues separate from the ideologies."
why you should read it:
I often hear political debates about issues of morality include something like "America is founded on Judeo-Christian values." I guess there is some truth to that. I'm no historical scholar. But I also thought that our founders were heavily influenced by the age of enlightenment, valuing reason and liberty. To go as far as to claim that "America is a Christian nation" because our founders were Christians is ridiculous. Was evolution a Christian theory because of Darwin's religious beliefs? Hilter was a Christian, does that make the Holocaust a Christian genocide? Religions have some good values, but our founders seems to have made their intentions about which values were appropriate for government pretty clear when they intentionalseparatedted church and state. So to make government decisions based on a majority population's religious values seems like a violation of our founders' intentions. Those are my thoughts anyway. This guy has some good ones too.
Free Speech or Fraud?
by The Two Percent Company
adspar's quick summary:
An interesting angle on an abortion issue. The argument is that evangelical groups that run abortion alternatives centers are committing fraud when they often advertise their centers as providing "abortion services."
why you should read it:
I just thought the argument, that free speech protection shouldn't extend into this kind of situation, was interesting.
Thus ends the second edition of links adspar likes. All of the links for it are neatly available here. I'll end with this YouTube clip that kind of ties everything together for you.
movie link
If you want a preview of my next edition, here's what I've gathered so far.
Later.
Finch Beaks Change Size, Evolutionists Ejaculate Spontaneously, "“Darwin Definitively Proven Right"”
by Emperor Darth Misha I
adspar's quick summary:
A highly-opinionated religious conservative blogger makes fun of evolution, generating hundreds of comments, many of which are among the more ignorant writing samples I've ever encountered.
why you should read it:
The original blog post is pretty damn stupid, but the comments are truly astonishing. It really seems like a gag where each commenter tries to say something stupider than the last. But what is sad and scary is that these people are completely serious. Somewhere in the mid-100s some people start defending evolution seriously, and the responses to them are truly amazing too. Basically this post has pissed me off for weeks now, so I'm sharing it with you. These are the people who vote in America.
IOKIYAC
by PZ Myers
adspar's quick summary:
A highly-opinionated godless liberal blogger discusses the role of atheism in the ongoing investigation of Pat Tillman's death. I have no idea what the letters in the title mean.
why you should read it:
Well PZ is pretty fired up about anti-atheist bigotry here, but I'm not quite sure I'd take it as far as he does. You can read the original story from ESPN to decide for yourself. I do agree that the officer sounds like he has no clue how to deal with someone who isn't a Christian. I've just always been touched by the Tillman story, and I think this was a guy who deserves to be remembered and celebrated as a true hero. And his death certainly deserves an investigator whose squeamishness about Tillman's atheism isn't so pathetically obvious.
Am I partisan? When I'’m forced to be.
by the BABlogger
adspar's quick summary:
An astronomer reluctantly embraces anti-Republican partisanship when faced with that party's seeming determination to destroy science.
why you should read it:
He shows that the South Dakota Republican party explicitly endorses creationism. The comments point out that the Texas Republican Party explicitly advocates teaching Intelligent Design as science (page 20) in schools. Are you kidding me? How can this be real? What the hell happened to our country?
"Snakes" Deplanes Critics
by Joal Ryan
adspar's quick summary:
New Line Cinema has decided not to host advance screenings of its new movie, "Snakes on a Plane," effectively keeping critics away from it.
why you should read it:
After all the rest of the heavy stuff in these links you need something light, and there is nothing lighter than a plane full of snakes. Brilliant!
The tortured "logic" of the House GOP
by Hume's Ghost
adspar's quick summary:
Discussing a bill in the House regarding the "under God" clause of the Pledge of Allegiance, the blogger shows the terrible reasoning skills of some of our elected (Republican) leaders, not to mention their fundamental lack of respect fseparationion of church and state.
why you should read it:
The bill's sponsor, Rep. Todd Akin, R-Mo., said America was a nation of God-given inalienable rights and that's why the country is in a war against "radical Islamists." Democrats wouldn't want to "cut and run" in Iraq, he said, "if they understood the importance of those basic principles and that inalienable rights are impossible without a recognition of God and that's why the pledge bill is important and not irrelevant or trivial."Unfuckingbelievable. Apparently American values don't work without magical invisibdeitiesies, and anyone who disagrees is a terrorist. UUUUUUUUUUUUUGGGGH.
Question Skepticism
by Joseph j7uy5
adspar's quick summary:
A science blogger weighs in on church/state, specifically about the idea that we're a Christian nation because our founders were Christian. He also urges us not to over-simplify ideas into our impression of what someone's political agenda might be: "In the interest of clear thinking, let's keep the issues separate from the ideologies."
why you should read it:
I often hear political debates about issues of morality include something like "America is founded on Judeo-Christian values." I guess there is some truth to that. I'm no historical scholar. But I also thought that our founders were heavily influenced by the age of enlightenment, valuing reason and liberty. To go as far as to claim that "America is a Christian nation" because our founders were Christians is ridiculous. Was evolution a Christian theory because of Darwin's religious beliefs? Hilter was a Christian, does that make the Holocaust a Christian genocide? Religions have some good values, but our founders seems to have made their intentions about which values were appropriate for government pretty clear when they intentionalseparatedted church and state. So to make government decisions based on a majority population's religious values seems like a violation of our founders' intentions. Those are my thoughts anyway. This guy has some good ones too.
Free Speech or Fraud?
by The Two Percent Company
adspar's quick summary:
An interesting angle on an abortion issue. The argument is that evangelical groups that run abortion alternatives centers are committing fraud when they often advertise their centers as providing "abortion services."
why you should read it:
I just thought the argument, that free speech protection shouldn't extend into this kind of situation, was interesting.
Thus ends the second edition of links adspar likes. All of the links for it are neatly available here. I'll end with this YouTube clip that kind of ties everything together for you.
movie link
If you want a preview of my next edition, here's what I've gathered so far.
Later.
Tuesday, July 11, 2006
Why hasn't this story had more media attention?
When I put together my 9000 awesome words, I included a map of America, but I felt weird about it. My enthusiasm is more about the abstract idea of America than its current manifestation.
Nothing better illustrates my conflicting feelings about America than the story of Chester Smalkowski.
My synopsis:
His daughter refused to join her school basketball team in prayer, so they kicked her off the squad. After finding out that she refused because she is an atheist like her father, school officials made up lies about her to justify her removal from the team. Upset at about the events, Mr. Smalkowski went to speak to the school principal. The principal physically attacked Mr. Smalkowski, and then filed misdemeanor assault charges against him. He offered to remove the charges if they moved their family out of the state (Oklahoma), and when Smalkowski refused, he added felony assault to the charges. A string of defense lawyers refused to use atheism as part of the defense strategy, but finally the American Atheists got involved and found him a lawyer who was willing to talk about atheism in the heart of the Bible Belt. Eventually a jury found Smalkowski not-guilty.
Smalkowski's account of the ordeal is a must-read: Just Another Salem.
On the one hand you have a community full of people who blindly attack (physically, verbally, emotionally) anyone who challenges their beliefs. But on the other hand, the courts finally did the right thing in the criminal proceeding, and hopefully will in civil as well. I'm fairly surprised that they were able to find a jury of 12 people who were willing to consider the facts of the case without prejudice.
I love the idea of government by consent of the people, a government that serves to protect its citizens' right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. It is inspiring to imagine a bunch of farmers banding together to overthrow a deeply entrenched and oppressive regime and form their own nation, adopting Enlightenment ideals. I also love the protection of freedom of speech and the separation of church and state.
But I don't see the USA as a country committed to any of those ideas any more. America is a mass of people with little respect for anything but their (mostly religious) belief systems. A teacher told Smalkowski's daughter "This is a Christian country and if you don't like it get out!" It seems to me that more American's would agree with that teacher than would agree with our Founding Father's ideals.
Nothing better illustrates my conflicting feelings about America than the story of Chester Smalkowski.
My synopsis:
His daughter refused to join her school basketball team in prayer, so they kicked her off the squad. After finding out that she refused because she is an atheist like her father, school officials made up lies about her to justify her removal from the team. Upset at about the events, Mr. Smalkowski went to speak to the school principal. The principal physically attacked Mr. Smalkowski, and then filed misdemeanor assault charges against him. He offered to remove the charges if they moved their family out of the state (Oklahoma), and when Smalkowski refused, he added felony assault to the charges. A string of defense lawyers refused to use atheism as part of the defense strategy, but finally the American Atheists got involved and found him a lawyer who was willing to talk about atheism in the heart of the Bible Belt. Eventually a jury found Smalkowski not-guilty.
Smalkowski's account of the ordeal is a must-read: Just Another Salem.
On the one hand you have a community full of people who blindly attack (physically, verbally, emotionally) anyone who challenges their beliefs. But on the other hand, the courts finally did the right thing in the criminal proceeding, and hopefully will in civil as well. I'm fairly surprised that they were able to find a jury of 12 people who were willing to consider the facts of the case without prejudice.
I love the idea of government by consent of the people, a government that serves to protect its citizens' right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. It is inspiring to imagine a bunch of farmers banding together to overthrow a deeply entrenched and oppressive regime and form their own nation, adopting Enlightenment ideals. I also love the protection of freedom of speech and the separation of church and state.
But I don't see the USA as a country committed to any of those ideas any more. America is a mass of people with little respect for anything but their (mostly religious) belief systems. A teacher told Smalkowski's daughter "This is a Christian country and if you don't like it get out!" It seems to me that more American's would agree with that teacher than would agree with our Founding Father's ideals.
Friday, June 02, 2006
Argh
For the last 2 afternoons, I've been trying to write something in response to this article by Bill O'Reilly. (I think that link will only be good for a limited time.) His article basically points out that Americans are woefully uninformed about important issues, an goes on to blame it (partly or mostly, depending how you read it) on entertainment technology.
I'm frustrated though because I don't know exactly what I want to say, and I keep scrapping everything I've written so far. I think his article is a mess, and my reaction to it is definitely a mess.
O'Reilly mentions in passing a bunch of things that I have a lot of serious thoughts about: America's "issue illiteracy," "mind-numbing reality shows," video games, chat rooms, ipods, tabloids, and Barry Bonds. So I kind of want to work an intelligent discussion of all those topics into my response, but that would take way too long, and it would get a bit disorganized.
I think what most drove me to want to respond was his closing paragraph:
I'm giving up on making my thoughts look pretty, so here is a numbered list instead.
I could keep going but I guess I'll stop there. And by the way, I generally like O'Reilly. While I don't always agree with him, I think he's got a good approach to a lot of important issues. But for a man who is already so widely criticized, stuff like this makes his critics' jobs easier.
I'm frustrated though because I don't know exactly what I want to say, and I keep scrapping everything I've written so far. I think his article is a mess, and my reaction to it is definitely a mess.
O'Reilly mentions in passing a bunch of things that I have a lot of serious thoughts about: America's "issue illiteracy," "mind-numbing reality shows," video games, chat rooms, ipods, tabloids, and Barry Bonds. So I kind of want to work an intelligent discussion of all those topics into my response, but that would take way too long, and it would get a bit disorganized.
I think what most drove me to want to respond was his closing paragraph:
"Ultimately, mass electronic escape will lead to a very few exercising vast power over the distracted many. That, of course, is not the system the Founders envisioned. But when more votes are cast for American Idol contestants than for Presidential candidates, you know "the times, they are a changin'." And not for the better."
I'm giving up on making my thoughts look pretty, so here is a numbered list instead.
- Don't a few pretty much always exercise vast power over many? Isn't that what civilization always is? I guess we could revert to hunter-gatherer tribes where everyone had an equal say in how to run things.
- My understanding of the founding fathers' intentions was that they wouldn't let those rulers become abusive of their power, not that they wanted to keep the elite from ruling. Didn't they specifically set up the electoral college, as if to say "just in case you stupids screw something up, here are some people who should know better." The Founders just wanted to set up a system where the farmers could do their farming and not have to worry that the King is going to steal the crops or cut their head off for praying to the wrong god.
- Is it changing for the worse if American Idol is more popular than politics? People have always been a lot more interested in being entertained than sweating the details of how the country runs. Is it really so suprising that as technology shrinks the world, more people pay attention to a specific entertainment source than to a specific issue that doesn't pose an immediate threat? Isn't it nice that we have something that captures our interests so completely, and that we can enjoy it in a relatively peaceful time?
- The Founders envisioned a system of economic freedom where everyone was guaranteed the right to pursue happiness. Well they got it. Electronics and media corporations used their economic freedom to give people what they want, what they think will make them happy. Average Joe doesn't want to come home from a hard day of work and read up about spooky terrorist threats; he wants to watch baseball players hit homeruns. Average Joe Junior doesn't want to study geography; he wants to play Splinter Cell. Average Jane doesn't want to examine the issue of border control after she puts Joe Jr. to bed; she wants to see Taylor Hicks sing and dance like an idiot. Granted, people might be happier if they devoted more time and effort to understanding the world around them, and less time to worthless diversions, but people don't know what actually makes them happy. They don't want to do more work than they have to, and they don't want to be bored in the meantime. It would be nice if people were more educated on the issues, but is it fair to blame their ignorance on electronics?
- O'Reilly barely hints at 3 factors that are much more relevant to "issue illiteracy" than his cranky luddite paranoia: culture, education, and journalism.
- In regards to culture, O'Reilly wrote "The USA used to be a nation that valued knowledge and rallied around national standards." I agree that our culture generally doesn't value knowledge. We're more likely to make fun of a smart kid than appreciate him. This is a problem of much more concern to me than the popularity of ipods.
- In regards to education and journalism, O'Reilly wrote
"Our society is so intellectually undemanding that uninformed entertainers like the Dixie Chicks can comment negatively on foreign policy and be rewarded with a Time Magazine cover. Brad Pitt and Angelina Jolie can have a baby and receive more attention than the Senate vote on illegal immigration. And Barry Bonds can cheat his way to home run records and still command standing ovations in San Francisco."
- Our education system sucks. Maybe if we taught people some critical thinking skills they'd be more intellectually demanding. Maybe if we taught people how to set aside emotion and evaluate a political issue they'd have more interest in illegal immigration. Maybe if we taught people about ethics they'd shun the cheaters. But we'd rather force absurd stone-age myths into science classes than actual science. We'd rather be politically correct than present facts that might be critical of minorities. We'd rather fire a man for using the word "niggardly" than teach people what the word actually means. We fire the president of Harvard for offering an explanation of the gender disparity in the scientific community that we don't like, regardless of the validity of his reasoning.
- Journalist standards sucks. The news is now a business, catering to consumer demand. And very few consumers want objective truth. They want information that supports their existing views. And so more and more news sources just give people what they want, with little regard for truth. If you like the facts, why check if they're true, right?
I could keep going but I guess I'll stop there. And by the way, I generally like O'Reilly. While I don't always agree with him, I think he's got a good approach to a lot of important issues. But for a man who is already so widely criticized, stuff like this makes his critics' jobs easier.
Wednesday, March 22, 2006
adspar's thoughts on American Idol 50's night.
I cant believe this is what my blog is turning into, but I wrote this up in an email discussion, so I might as well publish it here.
adspar's thoughts on American Idol 50's night.
My bottom 3 this week would be Lisa, Bucky and Kevin. America's bottom 3 will include Lisa and Bucky. Not sure about the 3rd. Hopefully Kevin. Maybe Ace or even Elliott. I thought Ace was good enough this week though.
The way I look at this competition now is it stacks up into 2 groups - "finished products" and "potential talents".
To me, the winner has to be a finished product - someone who goes on stage knowing exactly who they are and what they can do with a song. They own the stage in their own way, and they PERFORM, not AUDITION. They are comfortable with their own style and enjoy themselves. They might improve, but they aren't going to CHANGE much. The potential talents haven't achieved that self-awareness and comfort yet, but they might be just a change or two away - but those changes are important. Some are closer than others.
Here are my rankings in each category
Finished Products:
1) Chris - Not much to say about this guy that hasn't been said, except perhaps that he's is being very smart the way he's approaching this. Never exposes any weakness. Great performer and very good singer.
2) Mandisa - I never really "got" her until this week. This girl can sing. Hopefully for her she keeps in her comfort zone.
3) Taylor - I really see his limitations this week. He's someone you want to sing at your frat party. He's like the Blues Brothers. You know he's going to put on a very fun show and everyone is going to have fun. But he's a better performer than he is a singer. Actually he's a better entertainer. He makes you smile, but I don't think he can really win a singing competition.
4) Kevin - I don't know who keeps voting for this kid, but Simon is right that he knows how to work HIS audience. I don't know at what point HIS audience won't be big enough compared to the entire audience to vote him out, but until that time we're stuck with him. He does have a good singing voice, but hasn't figured out how to use it to have broad appeal, so in that regard I'd put him in the potential talent. But as far as this competition goes, I don't think he's likely to improve. He's going to keep playing to the same audience (granny vote?) and so he's basically a finished product.
5) Kellie - Kelly is kind of the same as Kevin, except I don't even think she's as good as him. She seems confused all the time (because she's kinda dumb), even when she's singing. She just doesn't seem to get it. Good voice, very cute in a busted way, or kinda of cute in a normal way. Like Kevin, she's relying on a certain charm to carry her farther than her singing performance could carry her. But a blonde country girl kept getting votes last year, so who knows.
6) Bucky - End of the line for him. He's a decent country/southern rock singer. He's never going to get better than what we saw from him tonight. He's one dimensional, which is fine (see Chris), but he isn't strong enough in that dimension to be a star. Plus he's not clever enough to take songs from outside his wheelhouse and make them his own.
Potential Talents
1) McPhee - If I put her in the Finished Products category right now, she'd either be 3 or 4. I still don't feel like she's quite figured out exactly who she is as a singer, but she's improving every week, although I wouldn't go as far as Simon based on this week ("this week you became a star"). I think by the end she'll be better than Taylor, so I think she's a lock for top 3. The question is when she's head to head against Mandisa, will she have found her comfort zone, and will she be better. I'm genuinely not sure. For women though, attractiveness matters and she might get past Mandisa even if she's not as good a singer (yet).
2) Elliott - Barry Manilow totally hit it on the head - amazing voice, but he doesn't quite feel it yet. Ranking him as a finished product, he'd be behind Mcphee and Taylor, and even Paris. Tons of potential though, and seems smart enough that he might be able to take advantage of all the training he's getting right now and get himself into the top 4. But I also think he's in danger of getting booted if he doesn't improve quickly.
3) Paris - I actually think as a finished product she's further along than Elliott, but has less potential to improve. That being said, she still seems less comfortable with and aware of her talent than Kevin or even Kellie. Maybe its because she's young and being "aw shucks cute" and very talented has always been enough for her. But she hasn't found her comfort zone the way Chris and Mandisa have, and she'll start to look like a weak link pretty soon unless she finds it. I don't think she will.
4) Lisa - I've always liked Lisa, but Simon is right - she seems like the star of a high school musical, not an American Idol. Its funny because they always bring up that she has tons of performance experience, but she doesn't seem like she knows how to pull that together and perform the way she needs to for a given song in this contest. She's got tons of talent though. I bet in like 5 years she could be an American Idol, but she just isn't ready. She's got a powerful voice, just not quite ready to use it. I think her voice makes more sense coming from a WOMAN, not a GIRL. She needs to mature, calm down a bit, and pull it all together. She's got as much vocal talent as anyone.
5) Ace - Blah. He's got some vocal talent, but he's relying on his pretty face and the smoke and mirrors of his falsetto to carry him. If you got this guy a vocals coach to teach him to sing the upper register in tune, you could put him as the front man of a boy band and make millions from teenage girls. But for this competition, especially if the judges keep commenting on his weaknesses, he can't really last much longer.
adspar's thoughts on American Idol 50's night.
My bottom 3 this week would be Lisa, Bucky and Kevin. America's bottom 3 will include Lisa and Bucky. Not sure about the 3rd. Hopefully Kevin. Maybe Ace or even Elliott. I thought Ace was good enough this week though.
The way I look at this competition now is it stacks up into 2 groups - "finished products" and "potential talents".
To me, the winner has to be a finished product - someone who goes on stage knowing exactly who they are and what they can do with a song. They own the stage in their own way, and they PERFORM, not AUDITION. They are comfortable with their own style and enjoy themselves. They might improve, but they aren't going to CHANGE much. The potential talents haven't achieved that self-awareness and comfort yet, but they might be just a change or two away - but those changes are important. Some are closer than others.
Here are my rankings in each category
Finished Products:
1) Chris - Not much to say about this guy that hasn't been said, except perhaps that he's is being very smart the way he's approaching this. Never exposes any weakness. Great performer and very good singer.
2) Mandisa - I never really "got" her until this week. This girl can sing. Hopefully for her she keeps in her comfort zone.
3) Taylor - I really see his limitations this week. He's someone you want to sing at your frat party. He's like the Blues Brothers. You know he's going to put on a very fun show and everyone is going to have fun. But he's a better performer than he is a singer. Actually he's a better entertainer. He makes you smile, but I don't think he can really win a singing competition.
4) Kevin - I don't know who keeps voting for this kid, but Simon is right that he knows how to work HIS audience. I don't know at what point HIS audience won't be big enough compared to the entire audience to vote him out, but until that time we're stuck with him. He does have a good singing voice, but hasn't figured out how to use it to have broad appeal, so in that regard I'd put him in the potential talent. But as far as this competition goes, I don't think he's likely to improve. He's going to keep playing to the same audience (granny vote?) and so he's basically a finished product.
5) Kellie - Kelly is kind of the same as Kevin, except I don't even think she's as good as him. She seems confused all the time (because she's kinda dumb), even when she's singing. She just doesn't seem to get it. Good voice, very cute in a busted way, or kinda of cute in a normal way. Like Kevin, she's relying on a certain charm to carry her farther than her singing performance could carry her. But a blonde country girl kept getting votes last year, so who knows.
6) Bucky - End of the line for him. He's a decent country/southern rock singer. He's never going to get better than what we saw from him tonight. He's one dimensional, which is fine (see Chris), but he isn't strong enough in that dimension to be a star. Plus he's not clever enough to take songs from outside his wheelhouse and make them his own.
Potential Talents
1) McPhee - If I put her in the Finished Products category right now, she'd either be 3 or 4. I still don't feel like she's quite figured out exactly who she is as a singer, but she's improving every week, although I wouldn't go as far as Simon based on this week ("this week you became a star"). I think by the end she'll be better than Taylor, so I think she's a lock for top 3. The question is when she's head to head against Mandisa, will she have found her comfort zone, and will she be better. I'm genuinely not sure. For women though, attractiveness matters and she might get past Mandisa even if she's not as good a singer (yet).
2) Elliott - Barry Manilow totally hit it on the head - amazing voice, but he doesn't quite feel it yet. Ranking him as a finished product, he'd be behind Mcphee and Taylor, and even Paris. Tons of potential though, and seems smart enough that he might be able to take advantage of all the training he's getting right now and get himself into the top 4. But I also think he's in danger of getting booted if he doesn't improve quickly.
3) Paris - I actually think as a finished product she's further along than Elliott, but has less potential to improve. That being said, she still seems less comfortable with and aware of her talent than Kevin or even Kellie. Maybe its because she's young and being "aw shucks cute" and very talented has always been enough for her. But she hasn't found her comfort zone the way Chris and Mandisa have, and she'll start to look like a weak link pretty soon unless she finds it. I don't think she will.
4) Lisa - I've always liked Lisa, but Simon is right - she seems like the star of a high school musical, not an American Idol. Its funny because they always bring up that she has tons of performance experience, but she doesn't seem like she knows how to pull that together and perform the way she needs to for a given song in this contest. She's got tons of talent though. I bet in like 5 years she could be an American Idol, but she just isn't ready. She's got a powerful voice, just not quite ready to use it. I think her voice makes more sense coming from a WOMAN, not a GIRL. She needs to mature, calm down a bit, and pull it all together. She's got as much vocal talent as anyone.
5) Ace - Blah. He's got some vocal talent, but he's relying on his pretty face and the smoke and mirrors of his falsetto to carry him. If you got this guy a vocals coach to teach him to sing the upper register in tune, you could put him as the front man of a boy band and make millions from teenage girls. But for this competition, especially if the judges keep commenting on his weaknesses, he can't really last much longer.
Tuesday, February 07, 2006
America sucks / we love America
I liked this article.
The rest of the world complains that American hegemony is reckless, arrogant, and insensitive. Just don’t expect them to do anything about it. The world’s guilty secret is that it enjoys the security and stability the United States provides. The world won’t admit it, but they will miss the American empire when it’s gone.
Thursday, February 02, 2006
State of the Union
I watched the address from my hotel room in Atlantic City. I was very glad to hear that renewable fuel and science/math education are important agenda items, and I'll probably blog more extensively about that a bit later.
On the energy note, I think its odd that nobody seems to talk about the fact that oil is going to run out some day. And I strongly suspect that day will come a lot sooner than people want to believe, probably in my lifetime. If that happens, we all could be in deep deep shit. Read this article or this book before you tell me I'm crazy. More on this later I'm sure.
Also, I think Bush could have used some of those science teachers he plans on training to clarify something for him about human-animal hybrids.
On the energy note, I think its odd that nobody seems to talk about the fact that oil is going to run out some day. And I strongly suspect that day will come a lot sooner than people want to believe, probably in my lifetime. If that happens, we all could be in deep deep shit. Read this article or this book before you tell me I'm crazy. More on this later I'm sure.
Also, I think Bush could have used some of those science teachers he plans on training to clarify something for him about human-animal hybrids.
Monday, January 23, 2006
Wednesday, January 18, 2006
Is believing in God stupid?
I've been told that another reason I'm so arrogant is that I seem to think that everyone who believes in god is stupid. I've been contemplating this matter, and I keep thinking about Bill O'Reilly.
I'm mentioned a few times on here that I've occasionally listened to his radio show and I like a lot of what he has to say. I like his approach of being fair-minded and objective, and his willingness to fight for what he believes in. I think he's a brilliant guy, and I know that he is a devoted Catholic.
If he believes in god with absolute certainty, then it is because he doesn't apply the same fair-minded objective standard to his religious thought. In establishing political, historical or scientific claims, he would demand supporting evidence that passes fair tests of logic, objectivity, and reproducibility. No reasons that he or anyone else believe in god would meet those standards of proof.
Is he stupid for believing in god? No. He just hasn't decided to apply those standards to every part of his life.
Is it stupid not to apply such standards to every part of his life? Ah, this is a better question. I think it probably is stupid not to consistently apply standards of proof to all aspects of belief, but I'm not as sure about this. To answer that question, we need to determine the good and bad consequences of that decision. If the bad outweighs the good, belief without adequate evidence is stupid.
Belief in god, or choosing to follow a certain faith has certainly been a very positive thing for many people. The good side of religious faith is well documented, and I don't think I need to elaborate here. Some parts of the bad side of religious faith have also been well documented - people commit all kinds of unspeakable atrocities in the name of god.
But what about Bill O'Reilly? He's not advocating killing all the non-believers, so there isn't that bad consequence of his decision not to apply rigorous standards of proof to his religious faith. But a point I've touched on before from the Atheist Manifesto is that widespread acceptance of religious thinking encourages people to accept false certainties. Just because he doesn't choose to take drastic actions based on his beliefs doesn't mean that other people won't.
If Bill O'Reilly, who demands proof for almost everything, believes in his idea of god without proof, why can't radical Muslim terrorists do the same:
So I think an important downside of Mr. O'Reilly's religious beliefs is that it adds to societal acceptance of irrational conclusions.
No, I don't think Bill O'Reilly is stupid for believing in God. But I suspect it does more harm than good, a suspicion based on my belief that honesty is better than dishonesty. Obviously this entry isn't a full analysis of the harm and the good, it is just to illustrate the kind of approach needed to answer the questions asked.
I'm open to the possibility that full analysis might show that religion does more direct good than harm. But I'm not sure than goodness built on irrational belief is the way I'd like the world to be running. Maybe my valuing honesty is naive.
I'm mentioned a few times on here that I've occasionally listened to his radio show and I like a lot of what he has to say. I like his approach of being fair-minded and objective, and his willingness to fight for what he believes in. I think he's a brilliant guy, and I know that he is a devoted Catholic.
If he believes in god with absolute certainty, then it is because he doesn't apply the same fair-minded objective standard to his religious thought. In establishing political, historical or scientific claims, he would demand supporting evidence that passes fair tests of logic, objectivity, and reproducibility. No reasons that he or anyone else believe in god would meet those standards of proof.
Is he stupid for believing in god? No. He just hasn't decided to apply those standards to every part of his life.
Is it stupid not to apply such standards to every part of his life? Ah, this is a better question. I think it probably is stupid not to consistently apply standards of proof to all aspects of belief, but I'm not as sure about this. To answer that question, we need to determine the good and bad consequences of that decision. If the bad outweighs the good, belief without adequate evidence is stupid.
Belief in god, or choosing to follow a certain faith has certainly been a very positive thing for many people. The good side of religious faith is well documented, and I don't think I need to elaborate here. Some parts of the bad side of religious faith have also been well documented - people commit all kinds of unspeakable atrocities in the name of god.
But what about Bill O'Reilly? He's not advocating killing all the non-believers, so there isn't that bad consequence of his decision not to apply rigorous standards of proof to his religious faith. But a point I've touched on before from the Atheist Manifesto is that widespread acceptance of religious thinking encourages people to accept false certainties. Just because he doesn't choose to take drastic actions based on his beliefs doesn't mean that other people won't.
If Bill O'Reilly, who demands proof for almost everything, believes in his idea of god without proof, why can't radical Muslim terrorists do the same:
A person can be so well educated that he can build a nuclear bomb while still believing that he will get 72 virgins in Paradise. Such is the ease with which the human mind can be partitioned by faith, and such is the degree to which our intellectual discourse still patiently accommodates religious delusion.
So I think an important downside of Mr. O'Reilly's religious beliefs is that it adds to societal acceptance of irrational conclusions.
No, I don't think Bill O'Reilly is stupid for believing in God. But I suspect it does more harm than good, a suspicion based on my belief that honesty is better than dishonesty. Obviously this entry isn't a full analysis of the harm and the good, it is just to illustrate the kind of approach needed to answer the questions asked.
I'm open to the possibility that full analysis might show that religion does more direct good than harm. But I'm not sure than goodness built on irrational belief is the way I'd like the world to be running. Maybe my valuing honesty is naive.
Friday, November 11, 2005
Low limit so far
Since Sunday I've played 8,047 hands of $3/6 and won 2.05 BB/100, which is a rate I'm happy with. I've spread that play around a few different sites to step up my bonus-whoring efforts. I'm reasonably pleased with the volume of play I'm putting in, but I can't allow myself to let up on that.
Most of that play is 4 or 5 tabling during the day, which is kind of weird. I've been getting up at 5am and playing off an on until about 5pm. I've been able to listen to the Junks and Bill O'Reilly, while I play and go for runs around lunch time. It is a fairly enjoyable routine.
Most of that play is 4 or 5 tabling during the day, which is kind of weird. I've been getting up at 5am and playing off an on until about 5pm. I've been able to listen to the Junks and Bill O'Reilly, while I play and go for runs around lunch time. It is a fairly enjoyable routine.
Wednesday, September 07, 2005
Oil
I just told you how much I hate politics. Dammit. Don't read this if you hate politics like I do.
commence political rant
Bill O'Reilly's radio show comes on right after the Junkies, so I occasionally end up listening to it. I like the show because I usually agree with his views. I hate the show because I usually agree with his views. Today he said something that made so much sense to me, and pissed me off so much. I'm paraphrasing, but it was something like:
I realized that making such a drastic shift in the way our country runs day-to-day requires strong, focused leadership. Someone who can say, "We have to change. Here's why, and this is how. It won't be easy, but we'll all be better off." The problem is that political leaders, or any people for that matter, rarely have much incentive to look at the big picture. Huge changes cause discomfort, controversy, and resentment, even if they are in everyone's long term best interests.
Our leaders are already wealthy and successful - why compromise that in the short-term? Lets just keep everyone happy now and not risk upsetting them by asking them to make sacrifices. It takes a leader with a unique combination of foresight and not giving a damn what anyone else thinks to really make big changes, and the Teddy Roosevelts and Winston Churchills of the world are few and far between.
So we just stick to the way we've always done things, throw a few token dollars at researching a change but don't really do anything, and hope nothing fucks up our day. We'll probably be fine, right? And if we're not, they can't really blame us, can they?
That's what New Orleans was doing by not building a better disaster infrastructure. Now they're gone. Whose fault was it? IT WAS EVERYONE'S FAULT! YOU LIVED IN A CITY THAT IS BELOW SEA LEVEL, SITTING IN A HURRICANE ZONE, WITH SHITTY BARRIERS HOLDING BACK A HUGE LAKE. WHAT DID YOU THINK WAS GOING TO HAPPEN? You can't just blame the government, although they certainly should have done more. In the end, people have to take responsibility for themselves.
O'Reilly's thoughts about oil are absolutely right, and hopefully the $4 gallons of gas will finally force the common people to do something, since the leaders aren't really doing anything. Obviously, the leaders should do something, if they are looking out for our best interests. The Middle East is an insane place, full of people who hate us. If we have an opportunity to just get the hell out of there and stop pumping dollars into their economy we should take it. That whole region is such a political mess, so you'd think they'd want to get out.
But our leaders aren't doing anything, since they care much more about appearing to act in our best interests than they care about actually acting in our best interests. So we should do it ourselves. Maybe we'll stop buying huge SUVs. Maybe we'll carpool more and take public transportation. I'm planning to drive slower than I used to, which saves gas (and is safer for that matter). I'll combine my errands instead of making multiple trips. Next time I buy a car, I'll give serious consideration to buying a gas/electric hybrid.
Our political leaders aren't going to change things for us. Big oil companies won't lower their prices if we keep buying their products. The beauty of capitalism is that if the markets demand a product, someone will find a way to supply it. So if we demand alternatives to oil, eventually we'll get that too.
Or we can keep guzzling gas, ravage our environment, and eventually all get killed by Middle East terrorists or natural disasters. I'll probably be dead before that happens, so its not my problem, right?
end political rant
Dammit. Now I need to go play a video game or get drunk, or whatever will kill all the braincells that hurt from just thinking about how dumb we all are. Ooooh maybe I'll get drunk while playing a video game. Actually I'll save time and just smash my head through a wall.
commence political rant
Bill O'Reilly's radio show comes on right after the Junkies, so I occasionally end up listening to it. I like the show because I usually agree with his views. I hate the show because I usually agree with his views. Today he said something that made so much sense to me, and pissed me off so much. I'm paraphrasing, but it was something like:
We have the technology in this country to develop and implement alternative fuel sources. We should find something else, so that we don't have to be dependent on Middle East oil. Drilling in the Arctic would just be a band-aid. We need to find a solution. We'd clean up the environment and we could get out of the Middle East. But its not happening because the big oil companies are making too much money to invest in other energy sources, and the automotive industry doesn't want to change.
I realized that making such a drastic shift in the way our country runs day-to-day requires strong, focused leadership. Someone who can say, "We have to change. Here's why, and this is how. It won't be easy, but we'll all be better off." The problem is that political leaders, or any people for that matter, rarely have much incentive to look at the big picture. Huge changes cause discomfort, controversy, and resentment, even if they are in everyone's long term best interests.
Our leaders are already wealthy and successful - why compromise that in the short-term? Lets just keep everyone happy now and not risk upsetting them by asking them to make sacrifices. It takes a leader with a unique combination of foresight and not giving a damn what anyone else thinks to really make big changes, and the Teddy Roosevelts and Winston Churchills of the world are few and far between.
So we just stick to the way we've always done things, throw a few token dollars at researching a change but don't really do anything, and hope nothing fucks up our day. We'll probably be fine, right? And if we're not, they can't really blame us, can they?
That's what New Orleans was doing by not building a better disaster infrastructure. Now they're gone. Whose fault was it? IT WAS EVERYONE'S FAULT! YOU LIVED IN A CITY THAT IS BELOW SEA LEVEL, SITTING IN A HURRICANE ZONE, WITH SHITTY BARRIERS HOLDING BACK A HUGE LAKE. WHAT DID YOU THINK WAS GOING TO HAPPEN? You can't just blame the government, although they certainly should have done more. In the end, people have to take responsibility for themselves.
O'Reilly's thoughts about oil are absolutely right, and hopefully the $4 gallons of gas will finally force the common people to do something, since the leaders aren't really doing anything. Obviously, the leaders should do something, if they are looking out for our best interests. The Middle East is an insane place, full of people who hate us. If we have an opportunity to just get the hell out of there and stop pumping dollars into their economy we should take it. That whole region is such a political mess, so you'd think they'd want to get out.
But our leaders aren't doing anything, since they care much more about appearing to act in our best interests than they care about actually acting in our best interests. So we should do it ourselves. Maybe we'll stop buying huge SUVs. Maybe we'll carpool more and take public transportation. I'm planning to drive slower than I used to, which saves gas (and is safer for that matter). I'll combine my errands instead of making multiple trips. Next time I buy a car, I'll give serious consideration to buying a gas/electric hybrid.
Our political leaders aren't going to change things for us. Big oil companies won't lower their prices if we keep buying their products. The beauty of capitalism is that if the markets demand a product, someone will find a way to supply it. So if we demand alternatives to oil, eventually we'll get that too.
Or we can keep guzzling gas, ravage our environment, and eventually all get killed by Middle East terrorists or natural disasters. I'll probably be dead before that happens, so its not my problem, right?
end political rant
Dammit. Now I need to go play a video game or get drunk, or whatever will kill all the braincells that hurt from just thinking about how dumb we all are. Ooooh maybe I'll get drunk while playing a video game. Actually I'll save time and just smash my head through a wall.
Sunday, May 29, 2005
Fun and games
I'm not a big fan of FullTilt but they have a 50% rebuy bonus going, and I'm trying to branch out, so I bought back into that site. I instantly remembered how they never have many hold'em games going and the bonuses take forever to earn back. I doubt I'll play there enough to earn all $300 within the 60 day window. But while I was sitting in either a $2/4 or $3/6 shorthanded game, an interesting hand arose, and hilarity ensued. (Non-poker people may or may not agree on the hilariousness.)
Another reason Full Tilt sucks is that they don't offer hand histories, so I'm recounting this hand from memory...
Preflop - 6 handed
Flop - 5 players, 15 small bets in the pot
Anyway, I mentioned that hilarity ensued. I very rarely engage my opponents in chat, in fact I usually turn the chat feature off, but this was too good to pass up. The big blind was pretty upset about losing a big pot on the last card, so he begins berating me for what he thinks is bad play. It always pisses me off when I see players criticize their opponents' play.
Big Blind says - "That was absolutely horrible"
He is insulting me, telling me my play was horrible. Now keep in mind that I'm pretty proud of myself because I used some fairly sophisticated moves that paid off. Also note that this guy went a little overboard with his middle pocket pair. If he hadn't 3bet preflop I probably would have just check-folded on the flop, although maybe someone else would have sucked out on him. But that is the nature of middle pocket pairs. The point is that he brought this "bad beat" upon himself.
I reply - "Yeah betting the river there didn't make too much sense for you. Horrible."
I turn it around on him. He probably shouldn't have bet the river. Lots of opponents will call until the river with a hand containing an ace or a ten, so checking probably would have been a better play.
Big blind says - "Well I figured your hand hit the flop... you know, since you called a reraise."
Actually I called a raise not a reraise, but who's keeping track. So he is now defending his river bet, saying he figured my hand was made on the flop and that the Ace didn't help me. I love how it started out with him criticizing me, and now he's flopping around trying to defend his own play.
I reply: "Horrible figuring."
Outzinged, he pretty much gives up on the "horrible' line of conversation, but is still fuming mad.
Big blind says: "I love it when idiots fall a$$ backwards into a hand and then act like they played it right"
This is so replete with irony:
1. At no point in our little conversation did I ever defend my play to him. I didn't act like I played it right; I simply questioned his play, but he's too mad and/or stupid to realize that.
2. Second, as I've already mentioned, with the possible exception of my preflop call, I think I did play my hand right, but he's not a good enough player to realize that. And I didn't fall into that hand, I had to work hard for it! But to his ignorant a$, my play looked idiotic. (By the way, I find it hilarious when angry players find ways around the poker software's auto censoring: a$, fu_ck you, chit, etc. Where there's a will, there's a way.)
3. If you believe your opponent is such a bad player, why would you tell him? Criticism is going to piss a person off, which usually has one of two effects - it is either going to make them play better, or it will make them leave. Do you really want your opponents to get better? Do you really want a horrible player to leave your game?
I was content to simply enjoy irony #1 without further comment. As for irony #2, I felt no need to defend my play. I didn't want to educate him any more than I had already done by questioning his river bet, which I was only willing to do because I knew I wouldn't be playing in this game much longer. On that note, I figured I'd teach him irony lesson #3.
I responded: "You are mean. I don't want to play with you any more. Your meanness is driving this bad player away from your game."
And I left the table.
Another reason Full Tilt sucks is that they don't offer hand histories, so I'm recounting this hand from memory...
Preflop - 6 handed
- me in the small blind: A♥9♠
- 2 donkeys limp. Button raises. I call cause I could easily have the best hand. Big Blind 3-bets. All call.
Flop - 5 players, 15 small bets in the pot
- board: 8♥ 6♥ 3♣
- I bet out because I figure the BB will raise his overpair, which will probably get everyone else to fold. That cleans up my Ace outs and maybe gets overcards out if pairing my 9 would be good, and I have the backdoor flush draw and a possible weak straight draw. The pot is huge, so its worth taking this shot.
- I bet, big blind raises, all fold to me and I call.
- Sweet, exactly what I wanted.
- board: T♥
- Now I picked up the flush draw, plus an inside straight draw. I figure I have 9 outs to the nut flush, plus 3 Aces and 3 sevens for probable winners. That's 15 outs of the 46 unseen cards, so I have an easy call getting 10.5 to 1 from the pot.
- I check, big blind bets, I call.
- board: A♦
- Sweet, I rivered top pair. No point betting it, but I probably win.
- I check, big blind bets, I call.
- I drag the 13.5 big bet pot after big blind shows 9♦9♣
Anyway, I mentioned that hilarity ensued. I very rarely engage my opponents in chat, in fact I usually turn the chat feature off, but this was too good to pass up. The big blind was pretty upset about losing a big pot on the last card, so he begins berating me for what he thinks is bad play. It always pisses me off when I see players criticize their opponents' play.
Big Blind says - "That was absolutely horrible"
He is insulting me, telling me my play was horrible. Now keep in mind that I'm pretty proud of myself because I used some fairly sophisticated moves that paid off. Also note that this guy went a little overboard with his middle pocket pair. If he hadn't 3bet preflop I probably would have just check-folded on the flop, although maybe someone else would have sucked out on him. But that is the nature of middle pocket pairs. The point is that he brought this "bad beat" upon himself.
I reply - "Yeah betting the river there didn't make too much sense for you. Horrible."
I turn it around on him. He probably shouldn't have bet the river. Lots of opponents will call until the river with a hand containing an ace or a ten, so checking probably would have been a better play.
Big blind says - "Well I figured your hand hit the flop... you know, since you called a reraise."
Actually I called a raise not a reraise, but who's keeping track. So he is now defending his river bet, saying he figured my hand was made on the flop and that the Ace didn't help me. I love how it started out with him criticizing me, and now he's flopping around trying to defend his own play.
I reply: "Horrible figuring."
Outzinged, he pretty much gives up on the "horrible' line of conversation, but is still fuming mad.
Big blind says: "I love it when idiots fall a$$ backwards into a hand and then act like they played it right"
This is so replete with irony:
1. At no point in our little conversation did I ever defend my play to him. I didn't act like I played it right; I simply questioned his play, but he's too mad and/or stupid to realize that.
2. Second, as I've already mentioned, with the possible exception of my preflop call, I think I did play my hand right, but he's not a good enough player to realize that. And I didn't fall into that hand, I had to work hard for it! But to his ignorant a$, my play looked idiotic. (By the way, I find it hilarious when angry players find ways around the poker software's auto censoring: a$, fu_ck you, chit, etc. Where there's a will, there's a way.)
3. If you believe your opponent is such a bad player, why would you tell him? Criticism is going to piss a person off, which usually has one of two effects - it is either going to make them play better, or it will make them leave. Do you really want your opponents to get better? Do you really want a horrible player to leave your game?
I was content to simply enjoy irony #1 without further comment. As for irony #2, I felt no need to defend my play. I didn't want to educate him any more than I had already done by questioning his river bet, which I was only willing to do because I knew I wouldn't be playing in this game much longer. On that note, I figured I'd teach him irony lesson #3.
I responded: "You are mean. I don't want to play with you any more. Your meanness is driving this bad player away from your game."
And I left the table.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)