|
DelShalDar
[Recent Entries][Archive][Friends][User Info]
Below are the 15 most recent journal entries recorded in the "DelShalDar" journal:
|
09:21 pm
[Link] |
Politics Time... Again...
With all of the attention on the political landscape lately, and all of the fun little bits of information that keep coming out on various and sundry related topics, I felt that I'd get in on some of the little bits of underlying fun and games that I've noticed occurring.
( Double-standards, definitions, and more! )
Now, This is a good rundown of the main differences and stances of the two major parties [blogspot.com] if you're looking for a good, non-biased (or as close as I've ever seen to one) comparison between the parties.
|
|
11:18 pm
[Link] |
Evolution, and why it doesn't belong in a science class.
It took me a while, but I finally figured out why Evolutionists have problems with the teaching of Intelligent Design or Creationism in a science classroom: It's because they don't want people to point out that Evolution isn't a "science" so much as it is a philosophy.
( My reasoning for this... )
|
|
11:28 am
[Link] |
Capitalism vs. Socialism: Online Radio Show comments
I just heard an in-law's online radio show that dealt with the primary topic of capitalism vs. socialism and I noticed that some of the issues never really got explained clearly, or at least, the reactions didn't seem to come out as succinctly as I was hoping.
( The questions, comments, and my responses... )
|
|
04:01 pm
[Link] |
Ganked from Mel
Mel, this is all your fault... posting questions I can answer while I try to avoid doing my final database group assignment alone.
1: WHAT MADE YOU SMILE YESTERDAY?
Yesterday? You want me to remember yesterday? I just start on this and you're already asking impossible questions? You want to know what made me smile yesterday? Do you!? Well, I'll tell you! I plotted the demise of everyone who asked me stupid questions about times that no longer exist to my frame of perception... AND NOW I'VE INCLUDED YOU TO MY LIST!!! ... I probably smiled at something I read in a fanfic by Black Dragon.
2: WHAT WERE YOU DOING AT 8 THIS MORNING?
More time questions? Uh.... sleeping.
3: WHAT WERE YOU DOING 15 MINUTES AGO?
Eating breakfast/lunch.
4: SOMETHING THAT HAPPENED TO YOU IN 1995?
1995... you're kidding, right? I can't remember last week, better yet 1995... Probably my high school graduation...
5: LAST THING YOU SAID ALOUD?
"1995... you're kidding, right? I can't remember last week, better yet 1995..."
6: HOW MANY DIFFERENT THINGS DID YOU DRINK TODAY?
Instant Coffee (French Vanilla Cafe), and now Tea (Lipton Brisk)
7: WHERE ARE YOUR BEST FRIENDS RIGHT NOW?
Massachusetts, and sitting nest to me as I type this (though I don't know if my wife is technically a best friend, but I count her anyway)
8: WHAT COLOR IS YOUR TOOTHBRUSH?
Grey and white, and it sits next to my son's SpongeBob toothbrush.
9: LAST THING YOU BOUGHT?
Lunch at school
10: LAST GIFT YOU RECEIVED FOR YOUR BIRTHDAY?
That was months ago.... I think it might have been dress shirts... but that may have been last Christmas...
11: WHAT COLOR IS YOUR FRONT DOOR?
Red on the outside, grey on the inside.
12: WHERE DO YOU KEEP YOUR CHANGE?
In two jars on my dresser... one for pennies and one for everything else
13: WHAT IS THE WEATHER TODAY?
Sunny and a tad nippy.
14: BEST ICE CREAM FLAVOR?
Mint chocolate chip.
15: SOMETHING YOU ARE EXCITED ABOUT?
... um... apathy tends to be my friend so... excitement? Maybe that I'm graduating after next semester... but I also dread it, so...
16: LAST RAINBOW YOU SAW?
It was in the headlight of a car (I like to wear polarized sunglasses)
17: WHAT SIZE SHOE DO YOU WEAR?
9-1/2 Wide
18: DO YOU HAVE ANY SISTERS?
Yes
20: HOW DO YOU WANT TO CUT YOUR HAIR?
... already did... I like having a ponytail.
21: ARE YOU OVER THE AGE OF 18?
Yes
22: DO YOU TALK A LOT?
Only when I'm bored... or upset... or excited....... yes.
23: DO YOU WATCH THE OC?
OC? What's OC? Optical Characteristics? If that's what it's supposed to mean, yes, on occasion, when I can be bothered..
25: DO YOU KNOW ANYONE CALLED STEVE?
Yes, four of them.
26: DO YOU MAKE UP YOUR OWN WORDS?
Not if I can help it.
27: ARE YOU TICKLISH?
When I let myself be. I can usually ignore tickle-attempts if I know they're coming.
29: NAME A FRIEND WHOSE NAME STARTS WITH THE LETTER "D":
Dan, but he was a classmate, an acquaintance more than a friend, though he was friendly.
30: NAME A FRIEND WHOSE NAME STARTS WITH AN "A":
Allan Anderson, though he was an instructor of mine, but friendly enough.
31: 4TH PERSON ON YOUR MISSED CALLS?
Um... I have a digital answering machine currently storing no messages.....
32: WHAT DID THE LAST TEXT MESSAGE YOU RECEIVED SAY?:
"nods"
33: DO YOU CHEW ON YOUR STRAWS?
No... I don't believe I can properly digest plastic.
34: DO YOU HAVE CURLY HAIR?
No
35: WHAT IS THE NEXT CONCERT YOU'RE GOING TO?
I tend to steer clear of them whenever possible, but I might go to one my wife is in on occasion.
36: WHO IS THE COOLEST PERSON IN YOUR LIFE?
*blink* um... my parents, my wife, and my kid... I'm not picking between them.
37: WHAT SAYING DO YOU SAY A LOT?
"Here's the thing, ..."
38: WHAT IS THE LAST THING YOU ATE?
An almond, before that was another almond... before the almonds: a steak and rice lunch.
39: HAVE YOU SEEN THE MOVIE DONNIE DARKO?
Yes, and it was interesting.
40: DO YOU HAVE WORK TOMORROW?
Yes and no... my "job" can be described as "school."
41: EVER BEEN HUNTING?
No
42: A HEAVY SLEEPER?
Usually
48: LAST TIME YOU USED A SKATEBOARD?
When I was in my early teens
49: BEST MOVIE YOU'VE SEEN IN THE PAST TWO WEEKS THAT YOU HADN'T SEEN BEFORE?
Monster House... though that's not saying anything 'cause it was the only movie I've seen in the past 2 weeks.
50: WHAT KIND OF CELL PHONE DO YOU HAVE?
I don't have one, and unless it's issued to me (by work or my wife), which hasn't happened since I was laid off in February of 2004
51: WHAT ARE YOU LISTENING TO RIGHT NOW?
Lusive - Protanopic (through HappyHardcore.com's MP3 stream)
52: ARE YOU CURRENTLY DEPRESSED?
No, see the first half of #15 above for why...
53: WHO DO YOU MISS THE MOST?
Stupid people, but that's only 'cause you gotta find 'em to beat some sense into 'em... so if you don't swing, does it count as "missing" them?
54: WHAT IS YOUR FAVORITE SONG?
Uh.... whatever I like to listen to... I don't really have a single favorite.
54: COOLEST MUSIC VIDEO:
I don't really watch them, and AMVs are what I usually watch, in any case... even then, I hove no single favorite.
55: WHAT ARE YOU WEARING RIGHT NOW?
Clothes, including pants.
56: CURRENT ANNOYANCE?
I'm bored and I don't feel like doing my final Database project 'cause it might need changing as soon as I near its completion... that's the greater annoyance: having to re-do work.
|
|
01:11 am
[Link] |
Repetition is not the same thing as fact!
I've had enough conversations with enough people to start noticing a disturbing pattern when it comes to what information is considered factual. I see things on TV, hear them on the radio, and read about them in various places. Believe it or not, it doesn't seem to be the learned individuals who do extensive studies on whatever the topic of discussion happens to be about that get the mention. Instead, it winds up being whoever wrote the story, or the ad, or the latest and greatest best-seller that even so much as mentions the topic at hand.
To make the term clear, a best-seller is nothing more than a book that is labeled as a best-seller; it's not based on sales or the number of copies sold, but the perceived popularity of the book itself. Published books (often biographies or so-called exposés) tend to be written and printed on a for-profit basis for the writer and the publishing company, so if you find it in a bookstore, or it says "best-seller" on the cover somewhere, you can pretty much bet that whoever wrote the book doesn't so much care about the truth as they do about the money they'll make when the public starts hearing about it. To me, this seems to fall along the same lines as the old comment about web-based information where "whoever has the most hits, wins," which is just another way of saying that the more people who are exposed to a piece of information, the more correct the information they are presented is. This is, of course, a fallacy unless that site also happens to be an authoritative clearinghouse for the various and sundry findings of whatever serious studies are being (or have been) done.
The common misconception seems to be that whatever viewpoint or "fact" has the most people in agreement with it must be correct, and there can be no acceptance of anything that might be in conflict with it. It's the old "everyone knows that" response that really tweaks me. In my opinion (which is the only one that really matters to me at the moment), I refuse to believe anything I get past fourth-hand, and hold an extremely healthy suspicion about anything I get third-hand. First-hand information is always preferable, but second-hand information is often okay but is still suspect until it can be corroborated by more than just one individual. In effect, it's similar to the scientific method in that a single instance doesn't necessarily mean that something is true, but when two or more instances all agree on the result it's a fair bet that it's at least somewhat accurate.
The things I keep coming across seem more interested in burying and burning the repetition into our subconscious to the point where we stop caring where the information came from, and more what that information is. Far too many people today will believe anything if it's repeated enough: "Carbon Dioxide emissions by humans and their machines are the primary cause of Global Warming." "President George W. Bush is an idiot and doesn't know what he's doing as a president." "The War in Iraq is about nothing more than Weapons of Mass Destruction and stupidity." "The appendix is a vestigial organ and no longer serves a purpose within the human body." "Everyone thought the world was flat until Columbus tried to find India by sailing west and found The New World instead." These are just a handful of examples that I can recall of the top of my head. I can probably pull a lot more from memory, but I think I've listed enough "everyone knows this" statements to prove my point.
As for the reasons I list those particular ones... well, I can come up with obvious reasons that the statements aren't necessarily true: CO2 emissions haven't been proven to be the primary cause of global warming, but the idea that the whole Global Warming phenomena is just part of a natural cycle and higher CO2 levels just happen to coincide with the natural temperature increase is discounted because "humans must be considered to be the primary destroyer of anything we come in contact with" for some strange reason. Bush wouldn't have been president for a second term if he was an ineffective president, nor would he have mobilized troops into Iraq if he didn't feel there was a good enough reason to do so... and wars are declared by congress, not the president (at least not in the U.S.)... but the members of congress aren't being criticized for their decision on the matter, only the president (which just helps to point out the lack of understanding people have concerning their own government) who was urged by his constituents to push for war in the first place. The appendix has been found and confirmed to be an integral part of the human immune system; just as the tonsils were a while back (they were also considered vestigial before someone actually figured out what they did). Columbus was actually wrong about the world... he thought it was a few thousand miles smaller than it truly was while the majority of the rest of the sea-faring world knew about how big it actually is, and no educated individual at that time could afford to think it was flat if they had to deal with navigation or shipping cargo by sea.
You see, there is an insane number of things that "everyone knows" that are flat-out wrong, or at least incomplete or unproven. These are usually called either "old wives' tales" or "urban legends" if it's relatively unimportant, or "misinformation" when the error in information is intentional and is intended to be used as part of a serious decision-making process. This last term is what seems to be in common use at this point. Militant feminists claim that men are only good for sperm production, and that women shouldn't consider themselves women if they hold their own desire to stay home and care for their children and household. Gun control proponents extol the evils of citizens owning and carrying firearms, while at the same time their first response to a potential life-and-death problem involving an armed assailant is to call the police (who almost always carry firearms for personal protection and to aid in their service to protect the public).
It's like the Monkey Button (see my "Stupid voting monkeys!" post for an explanation) in that we're supposed to think the ways in which we're told to think, regardless of the reasons behind the message, or even the validity of the content. Over and over you'll hear a message. Over and over you'll see/hear/read stories or about situations that are intended to get you thinking in a certain way about a subject, person, or place that you wouldn't normally notice or think about on a regular basis. Well, start taking notice as this is also how stereotypes and oppressive governments work... you're not supposed to think about it, you're just supposed to repeat it so that there's yet another voice that "proves the message is right." So start thinking, start researching, and stop blindly repeating information you haven't seriously researched or experienced for yourself! I'm tired of coming across the same blind stupidity over and over and over and over and over and over and......... never being expected to have a real understanding of what I'm dealing with, just the stupid opinions of others.
Please, if anything I've written here isn't factual and you can prove it (with supporting documentation when available, of course), feel free to let me know. Additions or further examples are also welcome!
Exercise those brains people!
|
|
11:16 pm
[Link] |
Stupid voting monkeys!
Being a registered voter in that "nothing worth mentioning" category known as "independent," I'm willing to put up with very little from those I'm going to be voting for. That's not to say that I won't vote for a Democrat or a Republican if I like their candidate(s) for a particular office, but I tend to care less and less about party affiliations and more about personal accomplishments and past political performance. That I keep hearing people say that they're voting for "the lesser of two evils" is what really pisses me off, which prompted this particular posting.
I'll admit, I tend to distance myself from anything political that I come across as soon as I realize that it involves politics (which might actually take a significant amount of time before I actually notice it). This is a bit of a defense mechanism, and it's not geared to protect me. You see, I tend to rant to friends, coworkers, classmates, instructors, and anyone else I can drag kicking and screaming into the "conversation." Having been forced into taking liberal arts classes such as "Social Problems," "American Democracy and Politics," "Macroeconomics," and the ever-dreaded "Introduction to Literature I" I can safely state that I am as much of a political expert as the average U.S. citizen who has graduated from a state institution of learning with an A.S. degree. That my degree is that of a Computer Science program is irrelevant to this discussion save for the fact that only an idiot requires such individuals to take courses that might interest them in the fields of politics and the social sciences unless they are willing to deal with the potential repercussions. This particular posting, in this type of format, with the potential readership of the entire online world is the exact type of repercussion I am talking about. Now, I don't expect the entire online world to read this, nor do I even believe that it will be read by more than the individuals I know on a face-to-face basis, but the potential is still there.
Now, back to my main point: Why would a voter cast a ballot intended to put a candidate in office, when the voter dislikes that candidate for the position? The answer is quite simple: "instructed stupidity." That' right, I called all those voters stupid. I cannot understand the rationale behind limiting your voting to the candidates from the two main parties (the Democrats and the Republicans, for you stupid people) when there are likely to be no fewer than five or six separate candidates for any particular public office. Oh, I can understand that sometimes there are only one or two candidates butting heads for a particular station, but the vast majority of positions will likely have at least three people running for it. The sad fact is that the average voter has been trained to listen to what's being said on the radio, what's being shown on the TV, and what's being printed in the newspapers and textbooks... guess what kinds of people make that information available. Go on, guess! I bet you can guess that it's usually some executive earning at least six figures in an average year, either that or a group of people running a major network that can spread their stuff from one coast to another without a lot of difficulty.
That's the way we're being trained: "listen to the rich folks, they know what's best for us, after all." Don't believe me? Ask yourself who pays for campaign advertising. Ask yourself who decides who can and can't run for a public office. Ask yourself what it takes to get on the ballot in your local area. Now, ask yourself how much of a chance you would have to not only enter a race, but actually win the election to your chosen office. Do you think you have a good chance? If you do, where is your money going to come from? If you don't know where it will come from, how can you be sure you'd have enough to even begin to hold your own in a serious race?
The modern campaign seems to be less about how the people in the public office are beholden to the voters who put them in that office and more about why you shouldn't vote for anyone else as well as who will give them money. When the majority of campaign ads you see/hear/read are geared toward discrediting an opponent, making unfavorable comparisons to other public figures, pushing an agenda, or even to blatantly tell the voters that they're stupid if they don't vote for a particular candidate, I fear that a stupid voter will listen and vote the way they're being told to vote.
This wouldn't be a problem if there were only one or two stupid voters, but they seem to be breeding and brainwashing more and more otherwise intelligent individuals into being stupid voters. It's gotten so bad that I can't seem to discuss the pros and cons of the various candidates in my area with anyone without being told in some way or another that our current president, George W. Bush, is an idiot........ those are almost always the actual words that are used, in that order, like trained monkeys pushing a button to get food! I always ask why the individual I'm talking to feels that way and invariably I receive a "he just is" response, which only confirms that the stupidity is spreading to otherwise intelligent individuals....
In response to this, I recall when a fellow student in one of my night classes provided a few words of wisdom, which I wouldn't be able to repeat here word-for-word to save my life, but I can paraphrase: "If you can't explain to me, and make me understand, why you feel the way you do about [insert candidate/issue name here], you have no business trying to get my vote for or against that [candidate/issue]." This made perfect sense to me, seeing as I've grown cynical of the sound-bites and taglines and slogans, and instead become apathetic to all of the candidates until I've done my homework on them. I ignore party affiliations whenever possible as I believe they should have nothing to do with the person in a public office; instead there should be a "voter affiliation" where the power should be returned to the people, not the party... but that's just me, and I cannot help but feel I am of the minority when dealing with politics because I prefer to use my brain instead of the monkey button.
You want monkeys? Go visit a zoo and watch them copulate and throw poo..... actually, that's about the limit of what some of the candidates are capable of, so be wary of the poo flinging politicians who want to bend you over and.......... er.... you get the idea.... The most common type of voter copulation I've seen is when public programs get pushed as though they are an answer to all problems that exist. Remember that public programs cost money, which almost always leads more and/or higher taxes for the individual taxpayer in one way or another. They are also likely to create more problems even as they try to solve what they were intended to address. In my humble opinion, if you want a public program, go start it yourself, make it non-profit, and accept donations from anyone who will give them. Don't want to put the time/effort/energy/money/work into it yourself? Don't vote for it!
If you don't like the candidates you are told to vote for, got do yourself a favor and vote for the candidate that you feel would best represent you and your interests for that public office, whether it be a mayor, a senator, or even the President of the United States (especially that one!). That's what you're supposed to do as a voter anyway.
Please, don't make me re-write this winding rant and go use your brain when deciding who to vote for. And while you're at it, go educate the stupid voters! Break the Monkey Button!
|
|
07:51 pm
[Link] |
The Mighty Morphin' Power Ranger in me!
Shade: ShadowLevel: Thunder (Mind)Color: GreenArchetype: The PaladinTraits: Dominant Negative MasculineYou are on the side of Shadow; you would be a Green Ranger. Your animal is the Basilisk (DNM)
Tallies
Light - 1. - Shadow - 7. Dark - 2.
Dino - 1. Thunder - 2. Ninja - 1.
Red - 6. Green - 11. Blue - 3. Pink - 4. Yellow - 7. Black - 4. Purple - 11. White - 2.
Shadow is considered a great mystery. The balance point between Light and Dark, followers of this path are bound only to the codes they hold in their own hearts. As a result, this power can not be lost in a change of allegiance, because a Shadow's loyalty is always within him or her. Though most can be described as honorable, it is a personal honor, and not necessarily that defined by the light or the dark.
Thunder is the level of the Mind. These types prefer to use their wits to get through a crisis. Usually lighter-hearted than either of their counterparts, Thunder types will throw themselves into action, reinventing their ideas on the fly, if need be. Patience is not one of their strong suits, nor is persistence. Thunders would rather find the easiest, quickest way of resolving a problem, rather than waiting for a solution to present itself, or keeping at a seemingly unsuccessful tactic.
Two of the Green Grid Animals are reptiles, a fact which is quite fitting with the legendary Green temper. Unlike Reds, whose anger burns quickly and hot, Green anger is a cold, slow-burning flame. It's usually a terrifying thing to behold, because it can do so much more damage. Luckily, Greens don't get truly angry very often, and when they do, it's a righteous rage. After all, the Green Archetype is also known as the Holy Knight. As the name would imply, Greens are usually noble and honorable, warriors who fight to uphold what they believe in and protect the innocent. When Dark, this would obviously be the exact opposite. A Dark Green would have a code of honor, but would fight to uphold the pure ideals of evil. Often loners to some extent, Greens tend to be very self-contained, rarely giving anyone a glimpse into their inner self. Their friendship is hard to obtain, but once given, is nearly impossible to lose. And most people who have put forth the effort will agree that, on the whole, the rewards are worth it.
Greens are warriors, knights, not soldiers. As a result, they often have a hard time following orders, which leads to a lot of friction with Reds. Greens follow orders only when they respect the person giving them, and rank isn't necessarily going to win a Green's respect. They have little patience for bureaucracy, mindless rules, or doing things 'because that's the way it is.' Often, Greens make better leaders than followers, because they will never needlessly endanger a person under their protection. In fact, Greens often are self-sacrificing, simply because they value the lives of others much more than their own.
Bad things tend to happen to Greens, and no one knows quite why. Many of them are orphans, and most hide at least one painful secret in their pasts. Usually more. Perhaps because of this, Greens tend to be the ones who walk the line between the darkness and light more often than the other colors. To balance this out, Greens tend to latch onto a quest, something to focus on, a service higher than themselves. Whether it's Scott Summers and his devotion to Charles Xavier's dream, Dinobot and his honor, or Tommy Oliver's desire to be the perfect Ranger, every Green has a dream that means far more than life itself.
Notable Greens: Darkwing Duck (Dino), Ghostbusters - Peter Venkman (Thunder), Power Rangers - Tommy Oliver (Ninja), X-Files - Fox Mulder (Ninja), Digimon - Yamato "Matt" Ishida (Ninja), Transformers - Rodimus Prime (Thunder), Transformers Beast Wars - Rattrap (Thunder), Jim Ellison (Ninja), Transformers Beast Wars - Dinobot (Dino), Big Bad Beetleborgs - Drew McCormick (Ninja)
A Dominant person is in the front of the crowd, usually the focus of attention. A Negative person is more quiet and reserved, less active. A Masculine person is not definitely male persay; rather, he or she is more of a loner regarding problem solving. A Masculine person tends to solve problems on his or her own, only getting help when no other options are available.
from: Morphin Grid Alignment
... heh, figures I'd be green... the original Green (I think Tommy was his name) was the absolute coolest before he became the White Ranger (and a bit after, as well). I've always liked first-person shooters like Halo, where there are places where being a sniper is not only possible, but the safest way to clear an area. And when friendlies cross my line of fire in the middle of a firefight, they become expendably stupid . Fable is somewhat similar as I don't really need to worry so much about wasting an innocent or two when the enemy is more than happy to kill them to get to me.
|
|
10:20 pm
[Link] |
Coding fun!
For those of you who care, I have a review website (http://review.trihead.de) that has a primary focus on fanfiction as that's what I spend most of my entertainment time consuming. I'm now on my school's winter break and I decided to update the site, which apparently involves a massive reconstruction if for nothing but the database alone...
I figured I plop this here as those who frequent my site (the MSN search crawler is my most frequent visitor at this point, and it only crawls about three pages on my site... and it seems particularly interested in the login page for some strange reason O.o ) won't be seeing any updates until they're done. Seeing as I don't have that many visitors at this point (4 hits per day average) I feel it's safe to assume that nobody will actually notice the lack of updated information... I hope...
|
|
05:49 pm
[Link] |
Oops... (settings change)
eh, heh... oops.... I've had my LJ set to "friends only" since I started it... I forgot I did that, and now I've set it to "Registered Users"... All better! ^_^;
|
|
08:55 pm
[Link] |
War and Rights
Many people believe a temporary, partial suspension of Constitutional/Human Rights are okay during wartime. If this is the case, why does nobody worry when wars are declared for frivilous reasons? Here in America, we currently have no less than 3 wars being waged on our own soil: The War on Crime, The War on Drugs, The War on Terrorism, and there are likely to be more... maybe on discrimination, or underage drinking, or some other inane thing.
My point is this: What Rights are being "temporarily suspended" in the name of these wars, and what is the reasoning and attempts at justification for them?
The War on Drugs allows people to be arrested and their homes to be searched if they are suspected of possessing illegal drugs. The War on Crime is used to disarm law-abiding citizens, just in case they decide to break the law. The War on Terrorism allows a suspected terrorist to be arrested and held for an indefinite length of time, and all of his or her Rights revoked while the ndividual is in custody. These are not the only Rights that these "Wars" deal with or impede, but they are the easiest to mind for me.
I have to wonder at the American populace and the ready acceptance of laws and legislation geared toward "keeping us safe". There is nothing in the Constitution that says safety is guaranteed. It is not a Right. It is for the public to decide how best to make themselves safe and secure. Personally, I believe I would be safest, and feel the most secure, if I had the capability to defend myself, and to decide what I should and should not expose myself to.
I have the Right to speak freely, but when I can be arrested for making a simple off-handed statement that scares someone in earshot, I don't see how I can feel Free!
Feasabilities of winning the three Wars I have mentioned:
The War on Crime: 0%. This War cannot be won when new laws, rules, and restrictions are placed on a populace. With a new law banning something, new criminals must be "fought". With new injustices being defined, new criminals are "made". This war is doomed to failure.
The War on Drugs: 0%. This War has already been lost. When it was declared a war, drugs were more expensive and less prevelant than they are today. There are currently more drugs, more users, and more deaths attributed to drugs than when the War started. Drugs cost far less, and they are far easier to get at far higher qualities than when it started. Drug users are arrested and jailed for being willing or unwilling victims of addiction. There are more drugs getting into the country (and being produced here) than ever before, and the amount that gets stopped is insignificant when compared to what doesn't. It is mostly the victims that are being punished in this War. This war has already failed.
The War on Terrorism: 0%. This war cannot be won since terrorism is a concept. As long as people believe that instilling fear in the hearts and minds of their enemies is a valid tactic, terrorism will exist. Terrorism also bears many more guises than the Scuicide Bombers everyone seems to envision. Terrorism can also take the guise of an abusive friend, an obnoxious coworker, a violent and overbearing parent or child, or an oppressive government or institution. There is an insanely wide range of things that could be considered terrorism, and this War is against all of them. This war is intended to fail.
These three Wars alone have enabled a lot of temporary, partial suspensions of Rights due to the "Wartime conditions" that produced them... but these wars are not intended to be won, only control the populace through the restriction of basic Rights. And what better way to justify the violation of Rights than to declare war on things that cannot be, and are not intended to be, defeated?
This is all my personal opinion and speculation based on what I see, hear, and experience, so my information may be a bit off-balance or incomplete, but this is what I have come to understand. Oh, by the way, never get a programer (who all-too-often sees the world through the eyes of binary logic, in my case) involved in the Social Sciences unless you're ready to be told how illogical the social sciences are. Granted, I was told by my instructor that the social sciences aren't intended to determine "right" or "wrong", but I already see the determination of "this is a problem" as being "there's something wrong with this".
But rightful liberty is unobstructed action according to our will within limits drawn around us by the equal rights of others. I do not add "within the limits of the law," because law is often but the tyrant's will, and always so when it violates the right of an individual.
-- Thomas Jefferson
Those who would give up essential liberty to purchase a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety.
-- Benjamin Franklin
False is the idea of utility... that would take fire from men because it burns, and water because one may drown in it... The laws that forbid the carrying of arms are laws of such a nature. They disarm only those who are neither inclined nor determined to commit crimes. Can it be supposed that those who have the courage to violate the most sacred laws of humanity... will respect the less important and arbitrary ones, which can be violated with ease and impunity, and which, if strictly obeyed, would put an end to personal liberty ... and subject innocent persons to all the vexations that the guilty alone ought to suffer? Such laws make things worse for the assaulted and better for the assailants; they serve rather to encourage than to prevent homicides, for an unarmed man may be attacked with greater confidence than an armed man.
-- Cesare Beccaria, father of modern criminology
|
|
10:13 am
[Link] |
Fine, I'll play along...
Harry Potter Personality Quiz by Pirate Monkeys Inc.
-----
Your easy-going personality is best represented by the bow and arrow. You probably dont like the spotlight too much, and would much rather be backstage making sure everything is working right. You have a cool, level head and a broad perspective on life. This combination makes you an excellent advice-giver.
What sort of Weapon best Represents your Personality? (anime pics!)
brought to you by Quizilla
-----
|
|
11:58 pm
[Link] |
Women and their bodies... among other things
I'd like to point out something that most people seem to either take for granted, or have never come to realize: Women make themselves up and choose clothing designs and styles to impress women more than they do men. In fact, women today spend more time in the mirror getting all prettied up for the women they will come in contact with throughout the day than they do in trying to impress their (potential) husbands/boyfriends.
"No way!" you say, "It's all done to get men to notice them!" you think, and as far as you're concerned, that's the end of the discussion... but if you've ever wondered why it is that women are the ones who care more about their looks, if it's mainly intended to interest men, you begin to understand what started me thinking about this.
You see, Men and women tend to have two separate mindsets when it comes to looking good. Men want to look 'decent' to the world, and if they can manage to 'pick up chicks' at the same time, so much the better. Women want to look better than 'that girl down the street' or, failing that, they look for some flaw, any flaw, in the initial comparison and invariably hit upon something within themselves they find lacking in some internally-perceived way.
For most of us men, clothing is a necessary protection from the elements, and helps to prevent us from embarrassing ourselves through the simple act of being men. Pants work wonders in preventing us from absent-mindedly fondling ourselves in public places, as we would likely wind up doing if we regularly wore 'what comes naturally' as we are wont to do once we first learn how to undress ourselves. We wear clothing to protect the slightly more sensitive parts of our anatomy from things like hot bacon spatterings, flying sawdust, and the ever-present possibility of having to traverse a busy construction yard where the heavy-duty grinding and welding that you tend to see in the movies might send red-hot bits of molten metal in the general direction of our more delicate bits... hence why many men might decide to wear long sleeves at an office job as you never know where those pesky little tiny, flying, melting, potentially debilitating bits of shrapnel might come from, so it's good to be prepared.
Women might be able to claim the same excuses but, when one looks at the styles of clothing most women wear, this claim becomes as empty as a politician claiming that lower taxes and more public programs are an economic possibility as women's styles tend to accentuate, hide, lift, show, lie about, and otherwise show off to other women and the world in general. One molten bit of metal or a small spattering of bacon grease and they're suffering third degree burns over two-thirds of their bodies; including the 'more delicate bits' the clothing they wear is supposed to protect. Add to that any kind of garment that restricts leg movement to the point a lumbering axe-murderer can catch up to them in an empty parking garage when they have a good thirty foot head start and are trying to run flat-out in a 'dress' or 'skirt' that won't allow their stride to be longer than 12 inches without breaking both knees and dislocating at least one ankle before driving the eight-inch stiletto heel through their opposite toe. Hrm, that includes the shoes too... but it's still a valid example!
You will never hear a man asking advice about the way he looks unless he's trying to figure out which moustache/beard combination helps to make him look 'cool', or which t-shirt logo would be least offensive to wear to a family event, or "Do you think I could hide a [insert favored weapon here] in this coat?". Women make statements (NOT questions! These are never questions! I can't stress this enough) such as "What did you think of [insert girl's name here]?", "Does this make me look fat?", or the ever popular "Does this make my [insert body part here] look big?" are asked of men, not to help form an opinion, but to help reinforce the fact that women are constantly comparing themselves with each other, and refuse to walk away until they find something they like better about someone else. This could simply be considered to be part of some form of competitive drive to be worse off than someone else, but that is both counter-intuitive and counter-productive and only helps to make women feel inferior to each other in an endlessly depressing spiral until women everywhere implode due to the intense desire to feel smaller than anything else they can imagine. I have yet to meet a girl or woman (as you may have noticed, I tend to use 'girl' and 'woman' interchangeably... to me, they're all female, and I'm terrible at guessing ages) who can find nothing wrong with themselves. I've met women who wish their nose was smaller, women who wish their breasts were bigger/smaller/shaped differently, and women who hate the way their stomach sticks out. I've even met women who wished they had a feature another woman had, and that woman wished she had the same feature as yet another woman entirely... and I'm sure I could continue that line of "I wish I had her [insert feature(s)]!" on to eternity.
This is what I would easily consider to be a problem of epidemic proportions! There is no excuse for the lusting after of body parts owned by another human being when you have your own firmly attached and functioning within acceptable limits! The biggest issues men tend to have about themselves is looking like a dork or somehow doing something that makes them look like one.
Women seem to be these huge bundles of insecurities and faults that nobody else seems able to see. My attitude to this dilemma is the same advice I gave to my wife: Quit worrying about your imperfections unless someone comes right out and picks a fight about them... That's right, "picks a fight". What I mean by this is that the overwhelming majority of the population will not point out the faults of others without intending to insult them in the first place. A man can go all afternoon with mustard on the collar of his shirt, but nobody will say anything... Oh, they'll stare at the mustard spot, or they'll keep glancing at it, but they usually won't actually say anything about it because they might have mustard on their collar too, so it's safer to say nothing and avoid mirrors as much as possible to avoid finding out.
So ladies, it's like the mustard, don't say anything about the physical flaws of others, and don't bother to look for the same physical flaws when you see them in others.
Again ladies, if you want to feel just that much better about yourself, don't look for your physical flaws, and don't feel you have to be someone else to 'look good' or 'look pretty'. "We are our own worst critics." I don't remember who said that, but it's still true.
This started out as being a rant about the lack of sanity when dealing with women's clothing styles, but it became one about the self-degrading attitude women tend to have about their bodies... and I'm not even sure I made much sense considering what time it is... I might tweak it later...
|
|
10:45 pm
[Link] |
Underwear in fanfiction (and stories in general)
Being an avid Ranma fanfic reader, I have begun to notice little things that, though normally unimportant in and of themselves, show a decided lack of understanding with regards to reality. What has caught my eye this time? Underwear.
That's right. Underwear. Underpants. Panties. Bloomers. Whatever you call them, most people wear them. The fact that the vast majority of fanfics out there (especially those dealing with Ranma 1/2) have the characters wearing either boxers or panties, and no other type of underwear appear in the list of options, tends to detract from the sense of realism to those who understand, or have given any real thought to, these issues (which I have... sad, ain't I?). The major incongruencies in the storylines arise when a girl either becomes, or is expected to act/dress like, a boy, or vice versa. Ranma 1/2 comes easily to mind because of how much of the stuff I read and the nature of the main character's transition, and far too many authors seem to think 'things pinch' or are 'extremely unconfortable', and say as much within the story, though they don't really have much of an understanding as to why. And, though this is a fairly minor issue in the vast sea of incongruencies and gripes I will likely address, it tends to detract from a story's sense of realism when it arises and is handled incorrectly.
Being a guy, and also being married, I have an understanding (even if it is only on a conceptual basis) of why 'panties' are usually a mistake for guys... the distribution of fabric is all wrong with most styles, if there is even enough fabric to begin with, though some styles would pose no problem whatsoever due to their design. If the waistline is high enough, and they're not designed like thongs, wearing 'panties' would be no different from wearing men's Briefs, with minor differences. Simply compare the styles, sizes, and cuts, and you'll notice how similar they can be. Don't go for the low-rise, the thongs, or the bikini briefs, and there should be no problems as far as fit or comfort go, and I can imagine the material might even feel a bit different from the usual all-cotton fabric as well. The only other issue I can figure on would be the embarrassment coming from the possibility of being caught in one's underwear in some sort of public manner, usually in a locker room or similar.
And there are definitely problems for women who wear boxers... girls (at least all of the ones I know) wouldn't even contemplate wearing boxers on a regular basis without at least wearing something underneath them as during menstruation it can get... messy... or at least has the potential to do so. On the other hand, there are boxers designed for women, though I'm not sure how they'd fit a man to any degree. The simple solution: men's Briefs or Boxer Briefs. My reasoning for this comes both from the fact that women wearing men's clothing are usually simply considered 'tomboys', and from the time my wife was pregnant with our first child.
She had run out of clean underwear (she only had 3 pairs of 'maternity panties' at the time... at the time her idea of being frugal was to do laundry every three days, rather than spend a few more dollars and not have to worry about it as often) and hadn't noticed this prior to taking her shower. She started to panic slightly (hormonal imbalances weren't uncommon), and I decided to hand over one of my older pairs of briefs (they were clean) as she had this habit of wearing her clothing in odd ways (to me, anyway) and stretching out the waistbands of anything she wore of mine (and those sweat pants were never the same either). This was easily understandable, seeing as I have a 38" waist while hers is normally 28", but she didn't later in her pregnancy, as she came closer to delivering our 9lb 1oz son. Oddly enough, other than a bit of extra room in places (the front), she had no problems wearing my briefs whenever she ran out of her own throughout the rest of her pregnancy. Of course, I couldn't wear them anymore afterwards because she had stretched the waistbands out so much. But, back to my main point.
Women and men are generally able to wear the same styles of clothing in most cases, at least where pants are concerned. The only real differences are the styles and the degrees of close-fittedness that that each sex tend to prefer. Personally, I don't like things to constrisct my movement, so I tend to wear loose-fitting pants over Briefs (hey, this whole rant is about underwear... if you didn't want to know, you shouldn't be reading it). My wife either wears semi-tight pants/jeans or dresses/skirts and bicycle shorts over low-rise panties (and she'd probably kill me for telling the whole world). She is capable of wearing my clothing without much of a problem, though a belt would be required for my pants, while it would be nearly impossible for me to fit into her stuff, though that's mostly because she's just so much smaller than I am -- I wear X-Large, she could get away with Medium. I could probably wear women's fashions, but I find no reason to have to shlep through aisle after ailse, looking through rack after rack, and trying every thing I think might fit on just to test my theory... on this note, See my rant "Fashion Industry" dealing with Women's versus Men's fashions for more of my opinions on this subject.
I can understand when the character gains several inches around the waist, or is wearing a thong or similar, this can be an issue under those kinds of circumstances, but otherwise?
Basically, if you're a writer, and underwear becomes a topic or an issue within the story, please keep these things in mind, and/or at least ask or look around and actually do the comparisons yourself. And if you're not comfortable comparing notes with others, at least be willing to perform some cursory visual comparisons based on what you see hanging on the clothing racks in your favorite department store. My feeling is that if you're comfortable enough with it to write about it, you should be comfortable enough to research it too. Again, I know such issues don't become a concern in the vast majority of stories, but when they do...
|
|
10:05 pm
[Link] |
Fashion Industry rant
You women put up with way too much from the clothing designers/manufacturers and their sizing differences, you should boycott women's clothes until the industry gets a clue. I will use the following two examples to support my statement:
Men's pants: "I have a 38 inch waist, according to this 25' tape measure, and my 'inseam' (crotch to ankle) is about 30 inches, so I look for 38x30 or 38x32 on the pants measurements, throw them in the cart, pay for them, maybe wash them once I get home, and wear/wash them until they fall apart or they don't fit anymore."
Women's pants: "These look like my size, so I'll grab a size larger and a size smaller and go try them all on, nope I don't like how they fit, too tight here and too loose here, let me go and grab that style, shifting sizes and styles as I switch brand names as they're all different, and repeat as long as it takes to find one pair of pants that I can tolerate or I've exhausted the supply this store carries, buy the one pair they have in stock; if I like them, come back and pray they haven't changed their styles or sizing information overnight... okay, here's the same brand, style, and size... now to try them on... can't forget to get the next size up and down... they feel a little different, a bit too tight here and there, and the size up is way too big and all wrong... here we go again, gotta try everything all over again..." and repeat for every pair of pants in the wardrobe... do the same for shirts, while you're at it.
You'll notice a lack of mention of underwear beyond this little blurb as I can't see much of a difference, other than the usual "small/medium/large/etc", so that's okay, and I don't deal with bras on any real basis beyond removing my wife's whenever she lets me, so you're on your own there.
The reason men's sizes don't change, and use standard measuring systems for those sizes, is because men will find, and royally beat the crap out of, any moron who decides to arbitrarily reassign the sizing and style information on the stuff they wear. Picture this happening every time a guy finds his pants size has magically become "Size 8" or, worse yet, a simple number like "19" (with the word "size" conspicuously absent), like women have to deal with... there would be no Men's fashion industry shortly afterward as it would have mysteriously burned to the ground, along with the designer's house, his car, and his dog... you might even find said designer's body after these incidents, though their sanity may be lacking if they somehow manage to survive all such encounters... Men would sever all contact with all of the major chains and outlets that would allow such a dishonorable act, and transport themselves en masse to the nearest Army Surplus Store and proceed to extol the virtues of Army Fatigues, and their truly one-size-fits-most design... and while they're at it, browse around for all of the cool civilian-allowed Army Surplussy Stuff they can get their hands on, which would only give them more of an opportunity to congregate and plan the coordination of their retaliatory strikes on the Men's Fashion Industry and those who side with it.
No, you women should take a stand and defend your rights as human beings, and 'strongly discourage' the use of arbitrary sizing 'standards' that have no business describing anything other than the IQs of those who figured they were a good idea. I recommend finding equivalent clothing in Menswear that you find both comfortable, and passable until this grievous error of judgment has been corrected.
Note: As stated above, underwear was not covered as I will leave it to 'lady's discretion' on the action to take in regard to the more private aspects of their attire.
|
|
11:50 pm
[Link] |
Ranma 1/2 regarding Ranma's so-called fiancees
I find it amazing that an extremely small number of fanfic writers seem to notice the severe and troubling issue of Ranma's multiple so-called fiancees. I say "so-called" because not one of the individuals involved can claim him in any way, shape, or form once one takes a logical and/or legal look at the surrounding circumstances. Let me qualify the "legal" aspect with my decided lack of knowledge of any legal system outside of the United States, and not even that one is easily understood by the vast majority of its populace, myself included. With all of the different levels of law (local, city, state, federal) it's difficult enough to know what the "big ones" are, and which ones the average citizen is likely to be nailed with on a whim... which is not to say there are a lot of people being arrested without valid reason, but some of the laws themselves can be a bit too vague and all-encompassing to begin with. With that said, I will continue.
The three big "fiancées" I will deal with are Ukyo, Shampoo (Xian Pu?), and Akane. There are more, I know, but I don't remember their names at the moment (it's been a while since I've reacquainted myself with the anime/manga), and I plan on adding more to this when I'm thinking about it, when I find the time to go through the source material... which may not be anytime in the foreseeable future.
Ukyo has no claim, or at least no evidence of a claim, to Ranma due to the fact that she had already gambled away her family's yatti (the one thing she tends to hold over Ranma's head). On top of this, she has no claim due to the fact that any arrangements Genma made for Ranma were made for a child he had kidnapped after selling to another family (for a bowl of rice, a fish, and two pickles... or possibly something else earlier on), and this occurred with his full knowledge of the Saotome/Tendo agreement, and without the knowledge of Nodoka, who carries the Saotome family sword. There is also nothing in writing that proves the agreement was ever made. Ranma was too young to have had any say in the matter, and Genma had sold the cart, left it somewhere, or destroyed it.
Shampoo has no claim outside the borders of her village, where she had given Ranma a 'Kiss of Death' in which he swore to hunt him down and kill him, regardless of the circumstances. The fact that he has a Jusenkyo curse and that he was in his cursed form at the time becomes meaningless, as he didn't know the local language and was accompanied by a guide (who should have made his customers aware of any of the more esoteric laws or regulations that might have effected them) was enough of an indication that should have allowed some form of negotiation to rectify any issues generated by a misunderstanding. Once out of the village (at the guide's urging), Ranma was then subject to only China's federal laws, and the Village's laws came secondary, especially due to Ranma's citizenry status. Once they (Ranma and Genma) returned to Japan, they were no longer under the influence of the Village's laws in any way, unless one or both of them were extradited to China in order to stand trial for their actions. The fact that the 'punishment' was shifted to 'marriage', the fact that they were in Japan at the time negated any ruling that was made on the matter, as the original 'ruling' was negated as soon as the 'punishment' was changed, and the 'accused' were outside the Village's jurisdiction at the time. The fact that Ranma was in Japan when a Chinese national was trying to force Village laws on Ranma without extradition, would only serve to bring further and much-unwanted attention to the Village (which considers itself to be 'hidden', and 'feared') by claiming Village law holds precidence over any other legal system or government. Considering all of the little tricks, attempts at coersion, druggings, and miscellaneous other plots and schemes to get Ranma into the Village, Ranma might be well within his rights to claim the Village is a danger to Japan and other countries based on what they had done to him, while on Japanese soil, to enforce their laws without regards to Japanese law. As far as the Amazons are concerned, Ranma is currently outside their influence, and any further attempts to 'capture' him may end very badly for the Amazons as a whole. Add in the battles with both Herb and Saffron, and the fact that he won both of them (even if they were both through a lot of skill and even more luck, rather than outright power), the Amazons would have to treat Ranma with far more respect than they seem willing in order to prevent him from striking out at them, or inviting both Herb and Saffron ovet to the Village for a bit of a rematch. In any event, unless Ranma goes willingly, the Village will be in constant danger either from Ranma himself, or the individuals Ranma attracts.
Akane and the Tendo's really have no claim as Ranma had been a kidnap victim for years, and Genma had no legal say as to what happened to him (see "bowl of rice, a fish, and two pickles"). Any claim made on Ranma as a Saotome was invalid as of that point in time, and the fact that Soun makes demands of Ranma and not Genma, even though he is guest in his house, shows that he cares nothing for Ranma, or guests in general, and therefore has no right to demand anything beyond a tanto. The mere fact that Ranma voiced his desire to return to china to find a cure for his curse, and was prevented from doing so, shows that Ranma himself holds no importance to any of those involved in the decision making, and therefore becomes a kidnap victim yet again. Ranma is abused both physically, emotionally, and mentally throughout his entire stay within the Tendo household. He is forced to apologize for things that he has no involvement in. His personal honor is questioned constantly, while his family's honor is apparently nonexistent thanks to Genma (assuming Genma is still Ranma's legal father), and yet both Soun and Genma continue to force Ranma to deal with any and every issue or problem that arises. Nobody questions the fact that Ranma is forced to defend the Tendo dojo in challenges, even though he is not part of the school being challenged. Akane is supposed to be the heir of the Tendo school, though she seems to spend very little time actually bettering herself, nor is it apparent that she is expected to act as such.
Along these lines, Akane constantly claims "I'm a martial artist too!" when Ranma tries to protect her from herself, and yet expects Ranma (or 'someone else') to come to her rescue whenever she realizes she's in over her head. Any time she manages to rescue herself from the situations she manages to get herself into, she does so by accident, and usually finds a way to make her situation worse than before. She never apologizes when she is in the wrong, yet demands Ranma apologize for her mistakes, all while questioning his motives for anything he does.
Akane was chosen for Ranma, though Ranma was the one offered the choice of which Tendo daughter he wished to marry, which he neither made, nor declined. Nobody ever brought up the issue that he hadn't made the decision, and that he still had a decision to make.
As far as the Saotome/Tendo agreement goes, there is nothing in writing that could help settle the issue, nor is there any reason Ranma would be required to abide by the agreement when his treatment enters into the equation.
Update: 10/31/2006:
With my fairly recent understanding of how Japanese law and its social customs work (which is entirely gained through second, third, and even fourth-hand means), only a small amount of the above would actually need to come into play. Apparently, the only agreements that would be put in writing would be agreements between companies or other large-ish entities, or personal agreements where one party has reason to mistrust the intentions of another. So, assume written agreements weren't necessary... at that point, I feel fairly safe to assume that if a person is known to be dishonest, in word or in deed, that those who deal with them regularly would know that they cannot be trusted beyond certain limits.
Keeping that in mind, I happened across a forum topic at fukufics.com discussing the very subject of my rant... well, mostly focusing on Ukyo alone, but it still covers the other two ( http://www.fukufics.com/viewtopic.php?t=100) and I felt a comment by an individual stated the answer quite succinctly. The first message by MageOhki as found at http://www.fukufics.com/viewtopic.php?t=100&postdays=0&postorder=asc&start=33 actually dealt with all of the "big three" by stating:
"Basically, I'll take the "three" primary "fiancees" in order
Shan Pu: She's a chinese. You're kidding, right? She's got NO claim in Japanese eyes. To be cold, she HAS no claim.
Ukyo: I get the impression that the agreement was between FATHERS. not clan heads, nor families, nor schools.
She's got some possible giri in Ranma's eyes (with or without the dowry) but... that's wiped becasue SHE REFUSED THE ENGAGEMENT.
It's dead, chums. When she stated (Viz, NPR, orginal sorce all have the same vaule meaning) that she was NOT there for the engagement and attacked Genma FIRST (as was right), she negated the engagment.
No engagement there, boyos.
Which, leaves the Tendos.
EOS.
(ANY Tendo. Ranma has NOT by WORDS chosen a fiancee.) "
Which I could still use to remove Akane from the running, since she has removed herself from the running multiple times by both her words and her actions. That Nabiki and Kasumi might still be viable candidates because... well... lets just say that I feel they might deserve a chance, seeing as they were never really supposed to be more than background characters to begin with (even though the same can be said for Shampoo and Ukyo) and were never really developed as characters so much as they were caricatures.
|
|
![[info]](http://l-stat.livejournal.com/img/userinfo.gif){kind=small}
delshaldar's journal