Wednesday, January 07, 2015

Meaning and Understanding

In order to communicate usefully and meaningfully (is anything less really communication?), one must be able to understand what others say, and they must be able to understand what you say.

More importantly, you absolutely must understand what they MEAN.

Obvious yes?

So then why are so many people attempting to make it so hard for others to understand them?

In order to communicate with someone, you must have shared meaning with them.

You must have shared definitions, shared context, shared points of reference; or you must be able to create these things, in your interactions with them.

You must be able to relate things in your own life and experience, to similar things in theirs, and be able to explain the differences (you must be able to share idiom and to analogize).

Further, you have to know where you have shared meaning, and where you don't. Otherwise you might say one thing, and they'll understand (or misunderstand), something else entirely.

It's a case of not being able to ask the right questions, because you don't know, what you don't know.

I am a member of several different subcultures, where individuality, the "unusual", the extreme, the outliers... are "common", even celebrated.

However, these are also subcultures which tend to infinitesimalize relatively small differences. To create terminology for them. To inhabit them, wrap identities around them, and unfortunately too often factionalize around them (look up "the narcissism of small differences")

For all these reasons, and many more, it is especially important that we be able to communicate clearly. That when we say things of significance, we are operating with a set of shared definitions and assumptions. That we have shared meaning, around our actions and interactions.

The potential for hurt or harm is so great, the need for clarity is all the greater.

The difficulty is, often, our cultural assumptions are transparent to us; and utterly alien to others outside of our culture (or subculture).

In most subcultures, "Good morning" is a friendly greeting, and "Hey, fuck you" is a horrible insult.

MOST subcultures, but not all...

"Hey, fuck you", IS a warm friendly greeting, in some subcultures...

The military, commercial kitchens, athletic fields, construction sites... Really anyplace where people (mostly guys) "busting each others balls" is part of the culture of comradeship and respect.

It's when the guys DON'T insult you, screw with you, bust your balls etc... that they are expressing their dislike or lack of respect for you. It means they don't care enough to bother, don't respect you enough, or don't think you can take it.

You wouldn't BELIEVE some of the insults my friends and I have for each other... never mind the dynamic between older and younger brothers...

But... knowing that, and being able to deal with that, depends on shared cultural understanding, and therefore having shared meaning and context.

If you're a polite upper middle class American woman, and you're suddenly dropped into a world, where people express respect and affection for each other by calling each other "bitch", "whore", "faggot" (certain gay subcultures for example)... You're probably going to be appalled, you will likely be offended, and you're certainly going to have a hard time understanding what is being communicated, and communicating in return.

Until you develop shared meaning and context.

This is something that an unfortunate number of folks in "alternative lifestyle communities" seem to miss... (and others as well, I'm just using this as a convenient and obvious example).

They seem to carry around the assumption that somehow, everyone is supposed to understand their exact individual and specific meaning for something, which may mean something entirely different to someone else... and they get offended when you don't.

There are these terms, that they make up entirely, or use differently from everyone else; and yet they seem to believe they have the right to be offended when others don't understand or "respect", their personal meaning or usage... and to force other people to use it while attempting to communicate with them (or worse, to refuse to attempt to communicate with anyone, unless the other party already understands their preferred usage).

Then of course there are those who, in reaction to the type of person I describe above, and in the attempt to not give offense; account for EVERY POSSIBLE OPTION, COMBINATION, OR VARIANT, IN EVERYTHING THEY SAY...

Can you tell that irritates me...

It's a terrific irritation, and waste of time, and just plain destructive to real communication and understanding.

This is one of the problems I have with people who keep trying to find infinitely small divisions of categorization for their "identity", or their gender, or their sexuality, or their ideology or any other damn thing; particularly those who get offended if you don't use, or don't understand, their preferred term for their self identification.

Fine, you may want to call yourself "queer oriented transgenderflexiblequestioning blondie"...

...but unless someone has direct personal knowledge of the multiple subcultures I drew those descriptions from, and the tiny shades of difference between multiple terms, no-one is going to have the slightest clue what you are on about. You're just going to irritate them, and make communication with them more difficult.

And sorry, no, everyone does not have an obligation to "respect your choices and preferences".

Neither your mere existence, nor your particular preferences, create any obligation for me to do ANYTHING WHATSOEVER, except not trespass on your fundamental rights. Everything else is optional, and a matter of cultural practice and social convention.

If you are explicitly and deliberately using language, terminology, and definitions, outside of cultural practice and social convention... How exactly is anyone supposed to know what to do, how to treat you, what to call you etc... ?

One shouldn't need to be an Oxford don of linguistics and semiotics, to understand what it is you wish to be called, what your interests and hobbies and preferences are, what you don't like etc...

How about this...

Those of you who are so concerned about others getting your "label" wrong?

Is your own sense of self worth, and identity, so weak, that it cannot tolerate others not uniquely and specifically acknowledging and reinforcing it?

How about you like yourself, respect yourself, and respect others enough; to not give a damn about labels and terminology, except as a way of facilitating meaningful communication and understanding?

How about you try not getting offended, and instead try to help other people understand you better... and try to understand them better?

Labels CAN be important, to facilitate communication, to speed things up, and to reduce the potential for misunderstanding... but you know what's more important? Shared meaning, shared context, and shared understanding.

In that same vein, definitions ARE important. Critical in fact.

The potential for harm inherent in misunderstandings in this world... It's just too great, to make the risks even higher through miscommunication and misunderstanding.

If you don't know the definition of an important point, clearly and completely, it's absolutely critical you ask.

If the meaning of an important point is ambiguous, or there are multiple equally valid meanings... particularly if they are contradictory; it is critical to reach shared understanding and clarity.

When the meaning of a word, phrase, term etc... is well understood in a particular subculture; it's incumbent on you to understand and use that definition, when dealing with members of that subculture, in their "own house". When dealing with those outside your particular subculture, you cannot expect them to automatically know and use your own specific definitions and meanings, which are different from their own.

Or is that just too hard?

Saturday, January 03, 2015

The Minimum Wage Lie

When “progressives” say “the minimum wage hasn’t kept up with inflation”, they're lying.

Not shading, the truth, exaggerating, or interpreting things differently… they are flat out lying.

… And what’s more, the ones who made up the lie in the first place, know they're lying (the rest mostly just parrot what they’ve been told).

What exactly would “keeping up with inflation” mean?

The minimum wage has been $7.25 an hour since 2009.

In 1938, when the federal minimum wage was established, it was $0.25 an hour. In constant dollars (adjusted for inflation) that’s $4.19 as of 2014.

So, not only has the minimum wage kept up with inflation, it’s nearly doubled it.

Ok.. well what about more recently?

Minimum wage 15 years ago in 2000: $5.15, or $7.06 in constant dollars

Minimum wage 20 years ago in 1995: $4.25, or $6.59 in constant dollars.

Minimum wage 25 years ago in 1990: $3.80, or $6.87 in constant dollars.

Minimum wage 30 years ago in 1985: $3.30, or $7.25 in constant dollars.

Funny… that’s exactly what it is today… How shocking.

So, for 30 years, the minimum wage has not only kept up with inflation, for most of that time it’s been ahead of it.

So, how are they lying?

The way “progressives” claim minimum wage hasn’t been “keeping up with inflation”, is by comparing today, with the highest level it has ever been; almost 50 years ago, in 1968, when the minimum wage went to $1.60 an hour ($10.86 in constant dollars).

This was a statistical anomaly.

There’s a long and loathsome tradition of lying with statistical anomalies.

At $1.60 an hour, the minimum wage in 1968 was a huge 20% spike from what it had been just 3 years before in ’65, more than 40% above what it had been in 1960, and nearly double what it had been 12 years before in 1956 when politicians started throwing minimum wage increases faster and bigger (again, all in constant dollar terms. The minimum wage at the beginning of 1956 was about $6.30 in constant dollars)

In constant dollar terms, the minimum wage today, is about the same as it was in 1962 (and as I showed above, 1985).

It just so happens that from 1948 to 1968 we had the single largest wealth expansion over 20 years, seen in the history of the nation (about 5-8% annual growth)… Which then crashed hard starting at the end of ’68.

From 1968 to 1984, the U.S. had 16 years of the worst inflation we ever saw, and the purchasing power of ALL wages fell significantly, as wages failed to come even close to keeping up with inflation (we saw 13.5% inflation in 1980 alone, which is about what we see every 4 years today).

It took until 1988 for real wages to climb back to their 1968 constant dollar level, because we were in a 20 year long inflationary recession, complicated by two oil shocks and a stock market crash (actually a couple, but ’87 was the biggest one since ’29).

However, the minimum wage was boosted significantly in that time period, far more than other wages rose, and stayed above the 1962 water mark until the end of that high inflationary period in 1984, declining slightly until 1992, then spiking and declining again until 1997 etc… etc…

By the by… household income in 1968? appx. $7,700, which is about the same as today in constant dollar terms… About $51,0000 (about 8% more than it was in 1967, at $47k). Which is almost exactly what it was in 1988 as well. Household income peaked in 1999 and 2007 at around $55,000, and troughed in 1975 at around $45,000

Of course, income was on a massive upswing from 1948 to 1968 (and in fact had been on a massive upswing overall since 1896 with the exception of 1929 through 1936). In 1941 household income was about $1500 ($24,000 constant), in 1948 $3,800 ($37,000 constant).

Like I said, it was the single greatest expansion in real income and wealth over a 20 year period, in American history.

1968 was a ridiculous historical anomaly… Not a baseline expectation.

So, From 1964 to 1984, the minimum wage was jacked artificially high (proportionally far above median wage levels), and “progressives” chose to cherry pick the absolute peak in 1968 from that part of the dataset, in order to sell the lie.

A living wage?

As to the minimum wage not being a living wage… No, of course its not. It never was, its not supposed to be, and it never should be.

The minimum wage is intended to be for part time, seasonal workers, entry level workers, and working students.

Only about 4% of all workers earn the minimum wage, and less than 2% of full time workers earn the minimum wage.

Minimum wage is what you pay people whose labor isn’t worth more than that. Otherwise everyone would make minimum wage. But since 98% of full time workers can get more than minimum wage, they do so.

What should the minimum wage be?

Zero.

Wait, won’t everyone become poor suddenly?

No, of course not. Literally 98% of full time workers already get more than minimum wage. If we abolished the minimum wage, most of them wouldn’t suddenly be paid nothing.

Wages should be whatever someone is willing to work for. If you’re willing to work for $1, and someone else isn’t, you get the job. On the other hand, if an employer is offering $10 and no-one is willing to take the job for that, they need to offer $11, or $12, or whatever minimum wage someone is willing to take.

If you don’t want to work for $7.25 an hour, don’t take the job. If nobody offers you more than that, too bad, but that’s all your labor is worth.

If you are willing to work for someone for $7.00, and they’re willing to pay you $7.00, what right does some “progressive” have to tell either of you, that you can’t work for that much?

No-one is “exploiting the workers”, if those workers took the jobs voluntarily, and show up for work voluntarily… If all you can find is a job for less than what you want to work for, you’re not being exploited, THAT’S ALL YOUR LABOR IS WORTH TO THOSE EMPLOYERS.

You may think your labor worth more, but things aren’t worth what you want them to be worth, they’re only worth what someone else is willing to pay for them.

But let’s be generous…

All that said, I don’t think we’ll be able to eliminate the minimum wage any time soon.

So, to those “progressives” who would say “let’s make the minimum wage keep up with inflation”, I agree wholeheartedly… Let’s make it $4.19.

Oh and if you don’t believe me on these numbers, they come from the department of labor, the department of commerce, and the census. If I’m lying to you, it’s with the governments own numbers… the same ones “progressives” are lying to you with. 

Sunday, December 28, 2014

The Mongol and The Caravan

It has come to my attention that this old story is not universally known... so I'm sharing it now...

A caravan is traveling down the road, and a lone mongol comes riding up, with his war cry and his sword, and orders the caravanners to stop...

So they do.

He waves his sword and shouts, and orders them all to line up in a row...

So they do.

He yells and waves his sword and orders them to give him all their gold and their goods...

So they do.

He yells and waves his sword, and he goes down to one end of the line, and orders the caravanner to get down on his knees and kneel over...

So he does...

...and the mongol chops the caravanners head off.

He yells and waves his sword again, and orders the next caravanner to get on his knees and kneel over...

So he does...

....and the mongol chops the caravanners head off.

Three guys down the line, a caravanner says to his friends "hey, there's only one of him and there's a dozen of us... let's rush him, he can only get one or two of us"

The rest of the caravanners grab him, beat him up, and say "what are you crazy? You might make him angry".

Gun Control and Electoral Math - The Scoreboard

Two years ago, I wrote a piece about electoral math and gun control, and how it was unlikely that we would have any serious national level gun control... and we have not (state level is another story unfortunately).

In that, I included a list of democratic senators who were up for re-election this year, their position on gun control, and how "at risk" their seat was:

Stupidity, Politics, and Electoral Math

So, now that we have the results of all of their elections, let's see what the last two years hath wrought among them:

XX = Unelected (or resigned and replaced by Republican)

  1. XX - Alaska - Mark Begich - Very Pro Gun - very unsafe seat
  2. XX - Arkansas - Mark Pryor - neutral - very unsafe seat
  3. XX - Colorado - Mark Udall - neutral - not a safe seat
  4. Delaware - Chris Coons - Very anti-gun - safe seat
  5. Hawaii - UNKNOWN (special election to replace Daniel Inouye) - safe seat
  6. Illinois - Dick Durbin - Very anti-gun - safe seat
  7. XX - Iowa - Tom Harkin - Very anti-gun - iffy, can't afford to screw up
  8. XX - Louisiana - Mary Landrieu - neutral - very unsafe seat
  9. Massachusetts - UNKNOWN (special election to replace John Kerry) - safe seat
  10. Michigan - Carl Levin - very anti-gun - safe seat
  11. Minnesota - Al Franken - very anti-gun - not a safe seat
  12. XX - Montana - Max Baucus - very pro-gun - iffy, can't afford to screw up
  13. New Hampshire - Jeanne Shaheen - very anti-gun - not a safe seat
  14. New Jersey - Frank Lautenberg - very anti-gun - safe seat
  15. New Mexico - Tom Udall - slightly anti-gun - safe seat
  16. XX - North Carolina - Kay Hagan - very anti-gun - not a safe seat
  17. Oregon - Jeff Merkley - very anti-gun - safe seat
  18. Rhode Island - Jack Reed - very anti-gun - safe seat
  19. XX - South Dakota - Tim Johnson - very pro-gun - very unsafe seat
  20. Virginia - Mark Warner - very pro-gun - not a safe seat
  21. XX - West Virginia - Jay Rockefeller - moderately anti-gun - very unsafe seat

Lotta XX's there... 9 actually, out of 21 (10 of those 21 were considered safe seats, barely challenged by Republicans). Pretty much every anti-gun democrat that wasn't in a safe seat, except Shaheen and Franken.

And THAT folks, is why we will not have any significant gun control on the national level any time soon.

Monday, December 22, 2014

The concept of "Cultural Appropriation" is both false and harmful

So... The subject of "cultural appropriation" is coming up again, this time in regards to Iggy Azalea (born Amethyst Amelia Kelly), a young, extremely white, woman from Australia, who spent the last 7-ish years in the American south (mostly Atlanta); who raps in a "dirty south" style and accent, common to black rappers from Houston to Atlanta.

If you're unfamiliar with the concept of "cultural appropriation" here's a definition (from wikipedia):
Cultural appropriation is the adoption of elements of one culture by members of a different cultural group, specifically the use by cultural outsiders of a minority, oppressed culture's symbols or other cultural elements. It differs from acculturation or assimilation in that cultural "appropriation" or "misappropriation" refers to the adoption of these cultural elements, taken from minority cultures by members of the dominant culture, and then using these elements outside of their original cultural context.
Cultural appropriation, is often taken to be an act of racism, or at best racial insensitivity or intolerance, and in some cases, this can be a valid interpretation... SOME cases.

To be clear, Iggy Azalea doesn't claim to be black, pretend to be black, doesn't "act black" (whatever that's supposed to mean) in her normal speech, accent, or mannerisms etc... She simply raps in a style commonly used by black rappers.

Here's a video of her biggest hit to date "Fancy"(which hit number one earlier this year):


Overall, there is outrage, among the easily outraged, that a white woman is "acting black", and that this is racist, disrespectful, and cultural appropriation. Also, that she is racially insensitive... even stupid... And that in general, she sucks.

While I don't disagree that Iggy Azaelea sucks (actually, she's quite capable as a performer... she sucks on purpose, because it makes her... and her producers who really run the show... a lot of money), I hold the entire concept of "cultural appropriation" as a negative thing... or even as a thing... as not only false, but harmful.

If it was done mockingly, or deceptively, sure... but we're talking about a performance style, not someone actually passing themselves off as a different race.

More importantly, nothing is being STOLEN... You can't steal a cultural identity, or a performance style, or a form of artistic impression.

She isn't copying anyone in particular, she isn't plagiarizing, and she isn't stopping black people from rapping in the same way, or making money doing so.

No race "owns" any type or style of art. Just because someone of one race chooses to create or perform a style of art most commonly created or performed by another race, does not invalidate that art, or make it racist.

To suggest otherwise is to suppress freedom of expression.

It is also to suggest that Nat King Cole, Charlie Pride, and Harry Belafonte were illegitimate... or that the Beatles, Rolling Stones, The Who, The Yardbirds... Yeah, I could go on, about both sides... for hours.

I personally sing blues and soul. I love the music, it moves me, and I sing it very passionately, and well, with a great deal of emotion and expression...

If I preform this music as it is intended to be performed... or at all... Is that racist cultural appropriation?

I love Indian, and Mexican food... is it racist cultural appropriation if I cook and serve these foods in a restaurant?

Or is that just ridiculous?

Now... to criticize Iggy Azalea for racial and cultural stupidity... I'm right there with you.

But the whole cultural appropriation concept... or the notion that it somehow diminishes anyone or disrespects anyone... really needs to die.

Saturday, December 20, 2014

"Never speak of this again"

Many years ago, I used to have a "stupid" charge for clients.

I was completely upfront about it, and what I called it. i would explain this to my clients as part of my rates before starting a gig, or going out on a service call...

If you make me do something really stupid and irritating, because you didn't do what you were told to do, didn't follow instructions, repeatedly made the same dumb mistake, or called me out because you did something really dumb (like unplug the machine and not notice for example)... You got the stupid charge...

Double my hourly rate, two hour minimum charge.

If said call, or call out, was after hours, on a weekend, or a holiday, you got my "special stupid" charge, FOUR times my hourly rate... Eight times if it was any two, twelve times if it was all three.

At the time I was charging $35 an hour for basic IT service, including travel time from my office to their site if more than 15 miles.

So, sure enough, holiday weekend comes around, and I get a call at 8 o'clock at night from a very wealthy client (a good sized business owner who had a serious home office that I set up, with full connectivity to his business)... Systems not working... Can't connect to the internet, can't print. And this guy has a 24/7 monthly service contract with me, with a 4 hour response (he paid for it gladly, and in general he was a very good client).

I go through an hour or so of troubleshooting, including specifically asking the guy to check all his power and interconnect cables, and look for power lights, and explaining to him my stupid charge. He was adamant he checked everything and he needed me to come out there (over an hours drive each way) right now... I explained to him that if when I got there it wasn't a covered service, he'd have to pay a minimum of six hours service (3 hours travel, 2 hour minimum service charge, one hour out of hours phone service) at the "special stupid" rate (over $2500 total)... He was absolutely certain.

So, I drive out there to the middle of nowhere mountains, walk into the office, look hard and sideways at the hardware for about 30 seconds from across the room....

...Walk over and plug the power strip the modem and router were plugged into, back into the wall.

Then I turn them both on, plug the phone line from the modem back into the wall, wait for them to come up, turn to the PC next to them, try to access the net and dial out, hear the modem dial out, and watch the browser start loading a page, and the printer start printing a test page.

I turned around again, and the guy was already standing there with a signed check in his hand.

From greeting him at the front door, to that moment, I hadn't said a word... I started to say "that's not necessary" (in fact I wasn't going to  charge him the stupid charge at all, just the 6 hours).

He interrupted me, handed me the check and said "Here's $5000... never speak of this to anyone".

... And I didn't, until after he passed on a few years later...

Thursday, December 11, 2014

The Great Pyramid

A few months back, I mentioned that I had found a "food", which had actually fallen completely off the Poretto Cheese Hierarchy:



""NO-MELT, imitation pasteurized process cheese product" 
This is not cheese. 
This is not "pasteurized processes cheese food" 
This is not even fake "Cheez!" 
This isn't even "Kraft Macaroni and Cheez" fake cheez... 
This is IMITATION fake cheez... 
It has fallen entirely off the Poretto Cheese Hierarchy. 
But worse... they have taken the ONLY GOOD THING about fake cheese... that it melts really well for cheeseburgers and grilled cheese sandwiches... 
AND MADE IT NO-MELT! 
What exactly is the point of this product? Because it is clearly not intended for human consumption."

Now unfortunately, Fran Poretto had taken down his original blog, so I wasn't able to post the hierarchy in response to reader inquiries. However, I wrote Fran personally, and he mentioned that he reposted it on a new site.

I have reproduced it here:


"On one evening not too long ago, a friend of mine, who has an extensive extended family, was dining with most of them. Included were several pre-teens. The bill of fare was, as is common in their not-particularly-pecunious household, macaroni and cheese. 
One of the pre-teens commented on how different the entree tasted to him from "real" macaroni and cheese -- by which he meant, as pre-teens often do, Kraft Macaroni and Cheese. He contrasted my friend's wife's dish unfavorably with the commercial preparation. 
An uncle to the clan cleared his throat. "Kevin," he intoned, "you know I sell cheese, don't you?" The youngster nodded. "Well, it's about time you learned about the Great Pyramid of Cheese." And he told them all about it. 
It seems that there are places where they make Cheese. The real stuff, straight from the milk, brimming with the odorific and oleaginous virtues that your narrator has found he cannot renounce. And it is good. 
Most of it, anyway. 
Some wheels of cheese just don't turn out right. But they're not thrown away, oh, no. That would be wasteful. They're sold to factors from other shops, which take them in, and melt them down, and add oil, and chemicals, and further processing, and thereby produce... Cheese Food. 
Cheese Food is regulated by law to contain no more than 49% non-milk additives, and must not contain any but a specified list of preservatives and artificial flavor enhancers. 
There are people who eat Cheese Food by choice. There are others who are trying to help them. 
But some batches of Cheese Food don't come out right either, and they're not thrown away, either. They're sold to factors from other shops, which take them in, and melt them down, and add oil, and chemicals, and further processing, and thereby produce... Process Pasteurized Cheese Food. 
PPCF is the step down from Cheese Food, and may contain up to 70% non-milk additives, plus a much wider range of flavor and color enhancers, and preservatives that guarantee that it will not spoil over the three months between your toddler's two demands for a grilled cheese sandwich right now, mom! 
And not all of this is saleable, either, but (you guessed it) it's not thrown away just for that. The rejected barrels are sold to factors from other shops, which take them in, and melt them down, and add oil, and chemicals, and further processing, and thereby produce... Process Pasteurized Cheese Food Substance. 
PPCFS may contain up to 82% non-milk additives. The flavor and color are almost entirely chemically produced, and the preservatives in it are reputed to be stronger than formaldehyde. Velveeta was once PPCFS, but has moved up the pyramid to Level 3 (PPCF). Cheez Whiz is PPCFS. A number of people have drawn images of the Blessed Virgin on their basement walls with PPCFS from spray cans, and have made quite a lot of money. 
But... that's right. Some of it doesn't meet the standards for retail-saleable PPCFS. The rejected barrels are sold to factors from other shops, which take them in, and melt them down, and add oil, and chemicals, and further processing, and thereby produce...
Well, it doesn't really have a name, and it doesn't need one, either, because all of it is consumed by a single company.
"And Kevin," the uncle rumbled, "would you like to guess what that company is?"
Little Kevin swallowed and shook his head. 
"It's the Kraft Company, Kevin." 
And I, who have set this tale down for you, have checked it in all particulars, and every word of it is true. And I'm told that little Kevin no longer asks for Kraft Macaroni And Cheese, either."

Wednesday, December 03, 2014

Climate Change... The New Inquistion

I was searching for something else, and I came across this piece I wrote back in 2007...

...And perhaps unsurprisingly, not much has changed today, except that now catastrophists are saying EVERYTHING is proof of climate change, which can apparently do anything whatsoever, including mutually exclusive and contradictory things, because "science".

It's absolutely unfalsifiable.

I decide to republish it here, to point out, that while the science against the catastrophists has only accumulated and strengthened; their stridency and grasping demands have only increased.

...

I say again, the concept of catastrophic anthropogenic climate change, except in the case of localized micro-climates, holds absolutely no scientific water.

Honest scientists will tell you the same thing if pressed (and if their funding doesn’t depend on it), but the agenda politics of todays science (admittedly on both sides of the political spectrum, but generally on different subjects), prevents real, honest, science from occurring anymore; or from being reported if and when it is (the record of suppressing science which disproves catastrophic anthropogenic climate change is long and shameless at this point).

The mere language used by catastrophists against those who seek to use actual science rather than sociopolitical ideological faith, calling us "deniers" in an attempt to paint an equivalence with holocaust deniers, should make it clear that their concern is not truth.

The honest numbers are simple.

Global temperatures have risen an average of less than 1 degree centigrade since measurements started being taken ("adjusted measurements", which have been conclusively proven to be inaccurate and possibly deliberately manipulated say it may be as much as 1.8 degrees, but that is the absolute maximum).

There is no “sudden and precipitous increase”. There is no hockey stick. It was a lie, and even many of the climate change people have admitted it. The ice caps aren’t melting, in fact in most areas they are thickening slightly. The sea level isn’t rising any more than it would have naturally.

Oh and in case you didn't know... Polar bears are excellent swimmers.

More damning to the catastrophists faith; even by their own admission, there has been NO rise (and there may in fact have been a slight decline) in global average temperatures, SINCE 1996.

Since temperature recordings have begun, volcanic eruptions have put more carbon into the atmosphere, and caused more temperature change, than all of human industry and activity since the beginning of the human race; but it wasn’t by increasing temperatures with carbon, it was by decreasing them with dust in the air... much of which was in fact carbon particulates.

The world has been far colder than today at times when there was far more carbon in the atmosphere; even without more dust. The world has been far warmer than today with far less carbon in the air, even WITH more dust.

The amount of anthropogenic carbon dioxide and carbon particulates in the atmosphere are FAR less than one half of one percent of total carbon dioxide, and far less than one half of one percent of total carbon particulates (the vast majority of CO2 is released by soil, rotting vegetation, oceanic microorganisms, and seafloor offgassing. The vast majority of particulates, are released by forest fires, and volcanic activity ). Considering how small a percentage of our atmospheric carbon and carbon compounds (between 0.03 and 0.06 percent. Not between 3% and 6%, 3 one hundredths of a percent), that amount is completely insignificant to global climate change.

This is not to say they don't effect local microclimates, they certainly do. But in those local microclimates, these concentrations are literally hundreds to thousands of times higher.

These levels of anthropogenic CO2 in the atmosphere are not a temperature driver, or a climate forcing.

In fact, historical records show that overall CO2 levels (which, remember, human inputs make up only a tiny fraction of) TRAIL global climate change by anywhere from a few hundred years, to a few thousand.

All currently existing GLOBAL climate change can be fully and scientifically explained by natural endothermic cycles (atmospheric oceanic interaction combined with volcanic and other geothermal activity, and large particulate emissions such as forest fires, plus natural greenhouse component and other climate forcing component emissions), and the fluctuation in output of the sun (because earth is an exothermic system). The suns output has varied greatly over the course of human history (and of course long before), and periods of warming and cooling have tracked right along with that output.

Models using average sunspot activity as an indicator of solar thermal forcing, have proven to be accurate within a few percentage points at predicting historical temperatures.

Some models (those used by catastrophists) predict that there may be FUTURE global climate change based on a theory that human generated carbon inputs, even though they are far lower than historical levels which did NOT cause these things to happen, will somehow cause the entire climate system to change the way it has always functioned.

These models are ridiculous on their face. The way you test a model is to run if forwards and backwards without adjustment, and see if it can accurately predict what actually happened in the past, using the data from further back in the past; then verifying against actual future results over time.

None of the models that predict significant global climate change due to human carbon inputs, come anywhere close to predicting the historical record.

They always consistently overestimate warming by SEVERAL HUNDRED PERCENT, as in estimating 4 to 8 times the actual warming.

And NONE of them came anywhere close to predicting the variability of the historical record, always showing a consistent warming trend over time, even for CENTURIES that had a significant cooling trend.

The models were not made to predict the actual climate... they were specifically made to predict massive warming,  no matter the input. And that's what they do, as non-catastrophists have proven, running data which any rational model should predict steady or cooling temperatures through the models... and they STILL predicted significant warming.

I leave it up to you to decide whether the models were just designed badly, or whether the distortion was intentional. Either way, these models cannot be trusted, and decisions should certainly not be made based on them.

The climate IS changing, and has since the moment the earth formed a climate. As near as we can tell (through ice core samples and the like) there has never been a period of more than 200 years without at least a 1 degree change in global average temperatures.

The climate will continue to change on its own; and no normal human activity will change global climate significantly one way or the other… unless it’s something that actually would kill us all (which would by definition not be normal... Incredibly massive particulate pollution over a high percentage of the earths surface - including the oceans - would do it. It would initially trigger warming from trapped thermal radiation, followed by extremely rapid cooling from blocking out the sun, and then a sudden ice age; and likely kill all crops and food animals in the process, along with at least 80% of humanity in the first two years, if not more, and ultimately followed by mass global extinction).

That isn’t to say we shouldn’t attempt to develop better sources of energy, we should. We aren’t going to “run out” of oil... ever in fact; a basic understanding of economics would show that. But, hydrocarbon fuels are eventually going to get more and more expensive as time goes on, and hydrocarbon fueled combustion engines are relatively inefficient, and do contribute significantly to micro climate pollution.

In many ways, doing things greener IS in fact better. Saving energy is generally a very good thing. Not polluting is generally a good thing. When it isn’t, is when it destroys economies, prevents job growth, reduces food production, increases food prices, and all the other ways that forced greenism (I won’t even call it environmentalism, because it isn’t doing the environment much good), causes pain, suffering, misery, and general reductions in peoples health, quality of life, standard of living, and basic liberties.

“Climate change” isn’t about the environment... It’s about giving financial and political control to anti-western, anti-capitalists.... Or just the cynical opportunists who would use peoples good intentions and fears to increase their own power.

It’s about punishing those rich capitalist nations and people, for not being poor socialists... Or just for "not doing things the RIGHT way".... whatever that particular person or group happens to think the "right" way is.

It isn’t science, it’s a pseudo-scientific sociopolitical ideological movement, and near religion. The adherents don’t need any proof, because they have faith; and any who challenge that faith must be burned as heretics in their new inquisition.

Soylent is made out of Diabetes... DIABETES




A commenter asked what I think of Soylent, the food substitute beverage, funded through kickstarter, that is supposed to provide all the nutrition you need in three drinks a day.

I think it's an abomination before god and man.

Food is meant to be enjoyed, savored, appreciated... it isn't just caloric intake for the purpose of maintaining body temperature.

However, in all seriousness, looking at the actual nutritional information, Soylent rather closely adheres to the Food Pyramid, with appx 50% of the calories from carbs, 30% from fat, and 20% from protein.

This is the Archer Daniels Midland diet, in its purest form.

And I mean that literally... You are literally replacing your entire diet of meats, fruits, vegetables, and grains, with the products of Archer Daniels Midland (they are by far the largest supplier in the country of the primary ingredients)... processed byproducts of corn and rapeseed.

http://cdn.shopify.com/s/files/1/0421/5993/t/12/assets/files_Complete-Soylent-Nutrition-Facts-1p2.pdf

The #1 ingredient, and the largest source of calories (almost 50%), is maltodextrin, which is literally corn sugar... or rather it's a polysaccharide derived from cornstarch.

Its common use in food is as a thickening agent, to absorb oils, and as a dusting powder; either infused with a flavor (like salt and vinegar potato chips), or to prevent clumping and sticking.

It's also used to provide bulk calories in protein shakes, weightlifting supplements, carboloading supplements for runners and cyclists etc...

It has the same glycemic index as pure glucose, and it has a similar effect on insulin triggering. Diabetics are specifically warned against consuming maltodextrin in more than very small amounts, for that reason.

The lipid component is almost entirely Canola oil, which is one of the highest Omega 6 oils there is, which dramatically increase inflammatory response and arterial hardening, and may contribute to prostate cancer.

Basically, the guy formulating this stuff believed all the junk science garbage about low fat, and low saturated fat, and polyunsaturated seed oils, and high carbs being the best diet; and formulated Soylent to match that.

The original formula was somewhat better (using olive oil, and having a better carb/protein/fat balance), but it has been reformulated to be cheaper, and vegan.

He also formulated it for three meals to have 100% of the minimum RDA of those nutrients defined by the USDA to have a minimum RDA... and NOTHING else.

That's idiotic.

It's also very engineerlike... which is what the developer of Soylent is... a software engineer.

He has stated that he never wants to think about or worry about or have to cook food again, and that science should let us do this cheaper, and be healthier, than eating actual food.

He couldn't be more wrong in every way.

Never mind the aesthetic issues... and the dehumanization and mechanization of one of lifes greatest joys...

Soylent is essentially the worst diet you could possibly have, and still pretend to be "healthy". It seems almost deliberately calculated to cause diabetes and heart disease.

I honestly think that if someone who was prediabetic went on soylent for six months, they would end up insulin dependent.

Thursday, November 13, 2014

Well Fuck

Our truck, our only transportation, was stolen overnight, right from our driveway. I was awake all night and didn't hear a thing, and the dogs never stirred, which is really odd.

It's a very desirable truck, a 2006 dodge diesel 4x4 in black. It's probably already in pieces.

It also had our cameras in it, some other electronics, a bunch of my tools, and most importantly, our car seat.

I just checked our insurance, and it won't pay, because it turns out it had been cancelled a few months back because the credit card I had set to autopay had expired, but we didn't get the notification because they were still sending them to the old address.

It's just been one damn thing after another the past few years.

Tuesday, November 11, 2014

The 11th hour, of the 11th day, of the 11th month...




It is now the 11th hour, of the 11th day, of the 11th month, at Compiegne...

In the United States, today is Veterans Day

In America, Memorial Day is for the dead, and Veterans Day is for the living. As such, first I wish to give thanks.

I thank all of you, still serving to defend our country, those of our friends and allies, and those who, wherever they serve, are fighting to preserve freedom, liberty, justice, and humanity.

May god bless you and keep you.

I thank all of my brothers and sisters who have served in the past; for the risks you have taken, and the sacrifices you have made.

To the rest of the world, today is Remembrance Day, sometimes known as Armistice day, or poppy day; commemorating the moment that the first great war of the last century was ended; in the eleventh hour, of the eleventh day, of the eleventh month of the year of our lord nineteen hundred and eighteen.

96 years gone, and still every year we mark this day

Why is it called poppy day?

Britain, France, Belgium, Canada, Australia, Russia... and on the other side Germany, Austria, Bulgaria, Hungary (and the remains of the holy roman empire), Turkey (and the other ottomans)... an entire generation of young men in Europe were lost to the most futile, worst run war, in modern history.

In four years, 18 million men died (or went missing, which is mostly the same thing), and 22 million men were wounded.

In fact, Europe has never recovered from this greatest of historical mistakes. It was the direct aftermath of world war one that lead to world war two; the combination of which largely created the postmodern European culture that is slowly being destroyed from without and within by self hatred, depression, defeatism, socialism, islamist theofascism, and reactionary nationalism.

But I digress; I was talking about why it is called poppy day.

Flanders is a region of Belgium (along with Wallonia, and northern France), where the fighting in the great war was at it's worst . The worst battles of the war were at Ypres, the Marne, the Somme, and Verdun.

At the Somme alone, the British lost 20,000 dead in one single day; and the allied forces (mostly British) lost 120,000 dead, and over 375,000 wounded total; with 100,000 dead and 350,000 wounded on the German side.

The battle lasted from July 1st , til November 18th, 1916. Almost five solid months of the most brutal trench warfare ever seen; and nothing to show for it but blood, and mud.

Perhaps 200,000 total dead at the Marne (1st and 2nd), perhaps 50,000 at Ypres, Perhaps 300,000 total dead at Verdun... (10 months, and the bloodiest battle of the war, though the Somme had the bloodiest day); and nothing to show for it but blood and mud.

There was an amazing thing though... That blood, and that mud... it became magnificently fertile soil; and soon after the fighting ended, all over these horrific battlefields, poppies began to bloom.

In the first great war, as had been tradition for most of western history, those killed in battle were buried in the fields where they fell. Their memorials were raised on or close by those battlefields; a tribute to those who fought and died, and a reminder to those who did not.

In 1918, there, in Flanders, and Wallonia, and France; there lay an entire generation of men. Millions upon millions of white crosses, millions upon millions of unmarked graves in farmers fields; surrounded by millions upon millions of poppies.

A symbol of life, of blood, of the fight for liberty and freedom. The poppies among the dead were taken up; first by the French and the Belgians, then the Canadians and British and Americans.

Today, the poppy is a symbol of remembrance, expressed best perhaps by this poem:
In Flanders Fields
--Lt. Col. John McCrae, M.D. RCA (1872-1918)

In Flanders fields the poppies blow
Between the crosses, row on row,
That mark our place; and in the sky
The larks, still bravely singing, fly
Scarce heard amid the guns below.

We are the Dead. Short days ago
We lived, felt dawn, saw sunset glow,
Loved, and were loved, and now we lie
In Flanders fields.

Take up our quarrel with the foe:
To you from failing hands we throw
The torch; be yours to hold it high.
If ye break faith with us who die
We shall not sleep, though poppies grow
In Flanders fields.

Monday, November 10, 2014

Net Neutrality… Obama… Cruz… How About Oliver?

Today, Barack Obama(D) has announced that he will pretend to support net neutrality:



In response, Ted Cruz (RPDGC*), has announced that Net Neutrality is the work of the devil:


The idea that either Democrats OR Republicans actually support net neutrality is a joke.

The Democrats have (and still do) very strongly supported big media and big communications, who are largely anti neutrality. It’s only now that net neutrality has obviously become a big issue among young liberals (who were largely unmotivated to turn out this midterm election), that they have pretended to support it.

The Dems could have made it a campaign issue, except then they wouldn’t have had the huge media and communications industry money for the elections, that they needed to avoid getting spanked even worse than they did.

If Obama had actually supported net neutrality, he wouldn’t have appointed an anti neutrality industry stooge as FCC chair… but again, if he did that, the Dems would have lost that sweet sweet big media money.

On the other hand, the Republicans are largely anti “big media” and anti “big communications”, and only became anti-neutrality when the Democrats decided to take it as an issue.

What is Net Neutrality?

Frankly, any libertarian should support net neutrality as a principle (government regulation is another matter).

Net neutrality as a principle, is simple. All legitimate traffic should be treated equally, no matter the source or destination. No internet service provider should filter, censor, or slow down traffic from their competitors, their critics, or because of politics or national origin; or for any reason other than technical requirements for safe, efficient, and reliable network operation.

It’s how the internet has always been run, up until recently, without any government action necessary. There’s a famous quote: “The internet interprets censorship as damage and routes around it”. Any internet service provider that censored, filtered, or slowed down traffic from anyone (for anything other than technical reasons) was routed around, and cut out of the net, by its peers. It was a great example of independent action and peer enforcement working in the marketplace.

Unfortunately, this is no longer the case.

Why is it an issue now?

Large media and communications companies like Comcast and Verizon have been deliberately and artificially blocking or slowing down traffic to and from their critics and competitors.

Of course, getting government involved does generally make things worse. In fact, it already did in this case, since the government has been involved from the beginning, and it was largely government action that created the current problem.

In a rational and unbiased competitive environment, consumers would have a reasonable choice of internet service providers, and any ISP that chose to censor or limit access, would lose customers, and either correct themselves or go out of business.

Unfortunately, we don’t have anything like a free and competitive market in internet access. Government regulation and favoritism has created huge monopolies (or at best duopolies, and no, wireless access is not realistic and reasonable competition given the distorted market and cost structures there either) in internet access.

We've reached a point where the telecommunications monopolies that government created and support, are in fact deliberately applying anticompetitive, unfair (and in some cases already unlawful) restraint against their critics and competitors.

Since they are government supported monopolies, the market is not allowed to correct the undesirable private action.

This means that, unfortunately, government action IS required… and even if it were not required, it’s inevitable, because politics is politics, and this is now an “Issue”.

So what do we do about the problem?

Please note, I don’t trust either Democrats OR Republicans on the issue in general, and I don’t trust either, or the FCC to regulate neutrality at all. Cruz does have at least one valid concern, in that the history of government regulation of almost every industry, but particularly technology, is mainly a long record of suppressing innovation and other negative unintended consequences.

The ideal solution is to end the government created internet access monopolies that most Americans live under, and allow free and open market competition to correct the problem.

Without government limitations on competition in actual high speed, high quality internet access; competition will increase, prices will fall, and any provider that filters or slows legitimate traffic will lose all their customers and go out of business.

This isn't just a prediction or libertarian idealism talking by the way. It’s been proved out in Korea, Japan… even in the UK. Everywhere that internet access competition has been allowed to flourish, everything has improved (conversely, in the U.S. where we have deliberately increased the power and scope of these monopolies, we have the worst internet access of any technologically advanced nation).

Unfortunately, that isn't going to happen.

The next best thing, is to mandate net neutrality in the least intrusive, least stupid way possible, and to react intelligently (and rapidly) to changes in technology and its uses, to avoid regulatory distortion and suppression of innovation.

Unfortunately, that isn't likely to happen either…

That said, it’s remotely possible for us get closer to that, quicker, than we can to disassembling the thousands of federal, state, and local regulations, which have created these monopolies, and made the barriers to entry for competition impossibly high.

Of course neither Democrats nor Republicans support or plan to do that.

The whole thing is a spiraling charlie fox of disingenuous cynical idiocy.

Personally, I say forget Obama, forget Cruz, and listen to Oliver (or if you don't care for Oliver, or can't watch a video, theres The Oatmeal):



*Reactionary Populist Disingenuous Grandstanding Cynic... not the Republican party, just Cruz

Wednesday, November 05, 2014

NOverride

Congratulations Republicans, you have a near record majority in the house, and what appears will be 54 seats in the senate (three races were still undecided at this writing. At least one is a near certain Republican victory, one appears likely so, and one is likely a democrat Victory).

Some folks have been saying things like "Well, yeah, Obama's gonna veto everything... but hey at least we'll have a veto proof majority on some things, that a lot of Democrats support".

Don't count on it.

Minority Democratic support for some "Republican issues" was allowed before, because it didn't matter. There was no consequence to it.

I can almost guarantee you, there will not be one single override. No Democrat will be allowed by the leadership to be counted publicly supporting Republicans, against president Obama and the rest of the democratic party... at least not if an override would be successful.

Now, it's an entirely different situation. A Democratic defection will be both a PR and a political disaster. It will hurt and weaken the Democrats even more than this election already has, and crash morale even more than it already has.

Unless a Democrat will lose his seat if he doesn't vote to override a specific veto, it will NOT happen. In that case the leadership MIGHT let them vote for an override, maybe, if there is no chance of an override passing.

If the situation is dire enough, a Dem congresscritter might actually defect without clearance... but that would have to be something pretty dire, because there is just about ZERO chance any Dem who did that would ever be forgiven if the override succeeded. They'd have to switch parties.

Of course, if there's no chance of the override succeeding, most likely there won't even be an override vote (and if there really were such a chance, then Obama wouldn't veto, unless it were something the Dems absolutely could not stand for... in which case, again, there's no way it would get enough Dem support to be overridden).

Even if there is however... Do you really think there will be 12 (presuming the total is 54 as it appears it will be) senators who will lose their seats if they don't override, on any specific issue? There are quite possibly 12 Democrats total who might lose their seats if they didn't override on issues that were very important to their state... but 12 on a single issue?

Of course, they could also put doing the right thing, for the good of their state and the nation, above politics...

... Oh... sorry... can't stop laughing at that thought right now...

Saturday, November 01, 2014

Outside Looking In

In 2003, on the occasion of the loss of space shuttle Columbia, I wrote an essay titled “Outside Looking In”. As it happens, I think it’s one of the best things I’ve ever written, and possibly the most important.

Yesterday, we lost Virgin Galactic’s spaceship two (and at least one of its two crew. The other is in critical condition). Within minutes, the cries to end all manned space travel had resurfaced in full force. People are already gnashing teeth and rending garments, and wailing, that space isn’t worth dying for.

Given this, I thought it would be appropriate to post the original essay here.

Nothing has changed substantially since I wrote it, except that even the desperately backward and hindering shuttle program has ended… and that now, it’s actually more than 42 years since we last set foot on the moon.

I should be clear… I’m not upset the shuttle is gone…

I’m angry that the shuttle is gone, and there’s no replacement.

I’m angry that we’re dependent on another country to lift our astronauts into space.

I’m ANGRY that the shuttle was over 30 years old, and we poured resources and energy into the shuttle program for 40 years, with basically no real development of an alternate solution.

Except that’s not PRECISELY true.

There has been LOTS of development on alternate solutions, none of which have been allowed to succeed (and only two have even been allowed to proceed to where NASA was in 1960).

We’ve spent tens of billions on alternate solutions, both public sector and private. Unfortunately, NASA has spent the entire time actively suppressing, delaying, or killing anything that would compete with or replace the shuttle; all as part of the bureaucratic funding fight.

I know this first hand, having been involved in several of the SSTO projects in the 90s (I was free labor, as an engineering student and intern. I’m a pilot, an aviation and space nut, my primary degree is in Aerospace engineering, and I’ve been a member of the American Institute of Aeronautics and Astronautics since I was 18).

Now, people, and I’m sure organizations and interest groups, are already trying to use this crash to attempt to ban private manned space travel.

… which really means that most of them are trying to end all manned space travel period; since it’s not like the public sector has done much to advance the state of human space travel since 1972.

It has been 45 years since we first landed on the moon, and 42 since Eugene Cernan (the last man to walk on the moon) stepped back into his landing module, and we left it.

I’m angry, because we have willingly, even eagerly, become a frigate navy nation.

it’s 2014… We should have spacelines. We should have private spacecraft available for purchase to anyone. We should be living on the moon, living on mars… we should be out in the stars.

Instead, we’re still countering the nattering of cowards and fools, who only want to look inward.

I’m angry… I’m more than angry, I’m disgusted.

Outside Looking In — Chris Byrne, 2003 
We have spent the last 30 years collectively contemplating our belly buttons. 
Let me explain what I mean by that (this is gonna take a while so get comfortable). 
Throughout most of history, humanity as a race has been outward looking. We strode out through the world around us to learn, to achieve, and to conquer.
From the earliest days of humanity we have looked outside ourselves for meaning. 
First we had medicine men and shamans who looked to the spirits. 
Then we had priests who looked to the gods. 
Then we had philosophers who looked to the nature of the universe, and sought to find mans place within it. 
Finally there came that extraordinary breed of men to whom Isaac Newton belonged to. They called themselves the natural philosophers, we now call them scientists. 
Each of these groups of people sought to divine meaning, reason, purpose, from that which surrounded us. 
We were on the inside looking out in wonder, and eventually, with some small degree of understanding. 
This point of view was reflected in our societies as well. 
We explored, and built, and grew. We strove for bigger, more, faster, better. 
The expression of this has often been called “pioneer spirit”. 
It’s the challenge to go forth and do that which has not been done. 
It’s the desire to climb the mountain “because it’s there”. 
This spirit quickly had us wee humans spread across this globe, living in almost every corner, no matter how hostile it seemed to our rather thin and frail skins. 
This is the spirit that Americans inherited from the British, the Spanish, and the Portuguese; who it seems, have managed somehow to lose it over the past two hundred and fifty years. 
This is the spirit that pushed us from sea to sea, the spirit that flung us up into the sky, the spirit that exploded us out into space. 
This is the spirit best voiced by John F. Kennedy when he said “We do these things not because they are easy, but because they are hard”. 
Over the past 100 or so years this spirit became focused primarily on science and technology. 
We stopped exploring, not because we ran out of places to explore, but because we did not have the technology to explore them. So we built it, and we built it fast. 
It took only us 44 years to make the headlong rush from the Wright brothers, to sustained supersonic flight. 
It was only another ten years before we managed to stick something far enough up there that it wouldn’t come right back down again. 
Three and a half years later we finally opened up the door and left the home of our birth; when on April 12th 1961, Yuri Gagarin became the first man to see the earth, from the outside looking in. 
Gene Roddenberry wouldn’t make the line famous for another 16 years, but Yuri Alekseyevich truly had, boldly gone where no man has gone before. One of us had finally made it off the rock. 
Then, at 10:56 pm EDT , July 20, 1969 we managed the short hop to the next rock. Neil Armstrong and Buzz Aldrin, had made it to the moon. 
We only went back five more times over the next three years. 12 men spent a total of 170 hours on the moon, and left behind, not much really. A few scientific instruments, a few spacecraft bits and pieces, the worlds most expensive dune buggy, an American flag, and a plaque that reads: 
“Here Man completed his first exploration of the Moon, December 1972 A.D. May the spirit of peace in which we came be reflected in the lives of all mankind.” 
And with these words, spoken by cmdr. Eugene Cernan on December 11th 1972: 
“America’s challenge of today has forged man’s destiny of tomorrow” 
…we turned out the lights and went home.

Unfortunately there has been no tomorrow. 
As I was saying, we have spent the last 30 years contemplating our belly buttons.
After World War II most of the world stopped looking forward, and started looking inward. 
There were too many social problems. 
There was too much poverty and hunger and disease. 
There was far too much pain screaming out at us from the horrors of the preceding 10 years. 
The spirit of exploration that had pervaded humanity since it’s earliest days was completely gone from Europe by the 1960’s. It had never really existed in east Asia, where culture and philosophy had been directed inward for thousands of years.
It had not existed in the middle east since the days before the ottoman empire. 
The only explorers left by the 60’s were America, and Russia, and Russia was only really doing it to compete with America. 
People all over the world started questioning the values that had formed previous generations’ assumptions. 
The generation born between the end of the depression, and just after the war, KNEW that there were more important things than exploration. 
They KNEW that this desire for exploration was just another form of conquest and exploitation and imperialism just like the ones that had brought about the worst conflict in human history. 
They KNEW that exploring space was waste of time and money that could be better spent on ending hunger, or disease, or racism. 
And so we began to turn inward. 
With books like “the catcher in the rye”, “On the Road”, “One Flew Over the Cuckoos nest”, we started looking more at ourselves, and our neighbors, and less at the outside world, and the outside universe. 
It took until 1972, but with the war in Vietnam, Richard Nixon and Watergate, price controls, inflation, the CIA and FBI, the Israeli situation, the Irish situation, and every other god damned miserable thing going on in this god damned miserable world… 
They KNEW that they weren’t going to spend another dime going to the moon ‘til we had fixed things down here on earth. 
In the broader culture things started changing even more. 
We encouraged people to take a good long look at themselves. 
To find themselves. 
To say I’m Ok You’re Ok. 
To be fair, a hell of a lot of good came out of this. 
For the first time we started seriously exploring the WHY behind a lot of mental and emotional problems. 
We started leaving bad marriages behind, and we started trying to be happier. 
We started doing something about racism, sexism and pollution. 
…But as usual, we went too far. 
We started confusing confidence with arrogance. 
We decided that power was bad. 
We made aggression and competition synonymous with evil. 
We started subverting science to ideology, and we decided that ideology was after all, a science. 
In our most extreme moments, we decided that boys were bad and girls were good. 
That white was bad and black was good. 
That both old and new were bad, and only NOW, ME, and US, was good. 
We stopped moving forward. 
We stopped looking outward.
Instead, we are spending all of our time looking sideways, up, down, in, and increasingly backward. 
Maybe this wouldn’t be too bad if we weren’t so bad at it. 
It would be a good thing, if we were able to do so without damaging ourselves, and without halting progress. 
…But so far, we aren’t. 
We haven’t been out of high orbit since 1972. 
It only took us 66 years to go from being earthbound, to setting foot on another planet. 
In the past 30 years we have have gone no farther, no faster, no higher. 
We have stopped going where no man has gone before. 
Charles Krauthammer wrote in the weekly standard that “we have put ourselves into a low earth orbit holding pattern”. 
Putting it a little more directly, we’re circling the parking lot looking for a space, instead of getting out of the damned shopping mall, and actually going some place and doing something. 
The most significant technologies of the last thirty years have been global telecommunications; exemplified in the internet, and biotechnology. 
Both of these are essentially focused inward. 
The internet has the potential to be the single greatest advance in mass communication since the printing press. 
It allows for true interactive communication on a global scale, but it is essentially inward facing. 
Why? 
Because it exists to exchange information we already have. 
The internet spreads knowledge around better than anything we’ve ever come up with and that’s great. 
It’s the greatest enabler of science history has ever known because it allows the freer and easier exchange of ideas, but the net in and of itself does little to advance the state of human knowledge. 
The internet is not like the microscope or the telescope or the space craft. Completely new things are not discovered or created by the internet, though they have without doubt been enabled by it. 
BioTechnology is by very definition focused inward. 
At it’s deepest level BioTech is the study of what makes us what we are. It promises to unlock near limitless potential for our biological beings. 
It opens the door to the possibility of ending old age, disease, hunger, even death itself. It offers potential dangers equal to its potential wonders. 
BioTech is probably the second most important field of technology ever devised, but exploration is still by far the most important. 
As no nation can be great without looking beyond its borders, no race can be great without looking beyond its planet. 
Whether there are other races out there, or we are alone; if as a race we are ever to progress beyond our current state of semi civilized savagery, to progress beyond a planet full of petty squabbles between nations, that just might incidentally kill us all; we need to venture off this planet in the largest scale possible. 
We need to live on, not just visit other planets. 
This is a concrete lesson of history. 
We started out as individuals. 
We fought and died as individuals until we formed villages, clans, and tribes
With villages we had a larger purpose and organization, and the fighting between individuals lessened. 
For thousands of years villages, clans, and tribes killed each other until we formed city-states. Then the fighting between tribes lessened. 
We began to form principalities and petty kingdoms, and they repeated the pattern, lessening the conflicts between cities. 
Finally we formed nations, and eventually ended most organized conflict between smaller groups. 
But we created the nation about 10,000 years ago, and we haven’t really come very far since. 
Half of Europe was STILL in the city state or principality phase 250 years ago.
Germany is now by far the largest and most important nation in Europe (no matter what France and England may say), but it only became a true nation in 1872. 
The United Nations is, at best, an ineffective organization with more politics than solutions. At worst, it is an organization used to spread the ugliest prejudices of humans, while decrying the actions needed to stop them, and masking it all under cynical self righteousness. 
It is clear that until we become an extraplanetary race, we will never achieve anything resembling a free society of all human beings. 
It is similarly clear that once we do become truly extraplanetary, such a society is, if not inevitable, at least more likely. 
Many would say that we need to solve our problems here on earth first. 
They believe that we can’t afford space exploration while people starve, and die of disease, and are denied basic human rights. 
They say that it costs too much, that it’s dangerous, that it has little benefit to the vast majority of humanity that has barely enough to eat. 
They are right in many ways… 
…but if as a people we don’t get the hell off this rock… 
…what will it matter? 
It will be a case of belly button contemplating on a racial scale.

Friday, October 31, 2014

Car Geek Flame War... The Definitive Best Looking 'Vette Debate

Ok... best looking vette debate...

This is not about the most desirable, the most expensive, the best engines, the best handling... Simply the best looking vettes.

Primary weighting is on exterior looks, but tiebreakers can move to the interior.

Only production or copo models, road legal, and available for sale to the general public count (so no grand am, GT, or true grand sport vettes for example, as they were track only cars), nor do road legal replicas of track only cars.

On the other hand L-88 and ZL1 (vettes which really were meant to be track cars) with the big block hoods and the side pipes etc... DO count, because they were actually sold to real buyers as street legal road cars.

I cant decide between:

  1. Tunnel back C3 coupe (with or without the big block hood, flares, chrome bumpers, and duck tail or slant tail)
  2. C3 convertible (with or without the big block hood, flares, chrome bumpers, and duck tail or slant tail)
  3. C2 convertible (with or without the big block hood)
  4. Single light side cove C1 convertible ('56-'57)
  5. Double light C1 convertible, double taillight round tail ('58-'60)
  6. Double light C1 convertible, quad taillight boattail ('61-62)


Subsidiary question... sidepipes are awesome... but are they always better on every model they originally came on? I can't decide.

Oh and yeah... I don't think anything C4 or later is even in the top ten, or even top 15 of best looking vettes (given that 1 and 2 above are actually a half dozen different models each).

...MAYBE the ZR1, and square taillight C4s make it into the top 20... maybe.

Wednesday, October 29, 2014

Marvels and Panthers

Alright my geek brothers and sisters... now that marvel has announced their movies, who should play T'Challa (Black Panther) and Carol Danvers (Captain Marvel/Ms. Marvel/Warbird/Binary)?

Supposedly, a relative unknown, Chadwick Boseman, has already been cast as T'Challa (who will be introduced in the third Captain America movie, due out in 2016 I believe). Frankly I've seen the guys work and I'm not impressed thus far.

Marvel has been known to recast... I can see them doing so here, so the game is open on both characters.

First, Black Panther.

If he wasn't already Heimdall, I'd have said Idris Elba was the perfect T'Challa. Similarly, Don Cheadle and Djimon Hounsou are already in the Marvel cinematic universe, or I'd say either of them would be decent possibilities.

You've got to have someone who is physically impressive (not necessarily big, though most artists have drawn him that way; but definitely fit and with great physical presence) yes... but more importantly, you've got to have someone who can project the same air of genius that Benedict Cumberbatch (Dr. Strange), Mark Ruffalo (Bruce Banner), and Robert Downey Jr. (Tony Stark) have. T'Challa is supposed to be the intellectual AND emotional AND spiritual superior to almost all in the marvel universe. He's specifically noted as the "eighth smartest man in the world", and is wiser, and more spiritually connected than any of those who are his equal in intelligence.

There aren't a lot of actors who can pull that off... and as I said, most of them are already playing characters in the MCU.

Maybe Chiwetel Ejiofor? He can do it physically, and emotionally, and intellectually. Hell, he's even an ethnic Igbo (his parents were Nigerian, though he was born and raised in England).

How about Captain Marvel?

Carol Danvers is actually much tougher.

First thing is, you can play around with looks a bit... but you can't completely change her entire physical presence, it's actually very important to the character.

Carol is a VERY BUSTY LADY... Even by comic book standards.

Not only that, but she's not some willowy little thing. She's tall (in universe she's 5'11"), and she's muscular, and she's STURDY.

She's bigger, taller, stronger, and tougher, than almost all of the male heroes, even without her powers (with her full powers, she is by canon, the most physically powerful Marvel hero. Only Hulk is more physically strong and damage resistant, and he doesn't have the energy powers that she has). Think of a near 6 foot tall womens fitness competitor... not a tiny little gymnast or hollywood actress type. That's really very important to who she is.

Basically, she is the second biggest (and second bustiest), of the main human (or human-ish anyway... it gets complicated...) female heroes in the Marvel universe (both behind Jennifer Walters, AKA She-Hulk... and actually in "human" form, Walters is shorter than Danvers by 1"... Though if you want to count Psylocke as a main hero, she's pretty much exactly the same size as Danvers, and some artists draw her just about as busty... The asgardian women are taller, but they're aliens... and Valkyries... so... you know...)

Note: If you think Marvel are ridiculous about their female heroes breasts, DC are FAR FAR worse... Four words: Power Girl Boob Window.

Yes, really, it may seem shallow and sexist, but honestly her physique really is an important part of her character, as is her sexuality. In particular, the fact that she was a tall and good looking but not either ridiculously muscular nor super busty woman before she was transformed and received her powers; and that her transformation made her into this "turned up to 11" body, as well as changing her personality (and these changes took her years to integrate and resolve, and accomodate)... it's really important to her character, her personality, her emotions, her psyche etc... and they are very relevant to the stuff that happened to her over the course of her career as a hero.

Importantly, she's incredibly competent, capable, and well trained; a veteran of the Air Force, NASA and SHIELD (sort of... it gets weird...), even before she received her superpowers.

Emotionally and personality wise, she's tough, she's hard in many ways, brittle in some, and insecure in many ways. She can be quite cruel and heartless, but she can also be overly emotional and irrationally sentimental... and VERY funny, sometimes in a cynical, sarcastic, and biting way, sometimes in a goofy way.

Most importantly by far though, is that she is VERY VERY BADLY DAMAGED.

Carol Danvers is one of the most screwed over women in the history of comics... and that's REALLY saying something. I won't go into it here because... really I couldn't... it takes too long to explain and is way too screwed up... but trust me (look up her full back story and the various controversies therein if you want to know).

This a woman with PROFOUND PTSD... for VERY GOOD REASON

Oh and she's a (just barely) recovering alcoholic on a scale so epic that TONY FRIKKEN STARK thought she was hitting the bottle a little too hard.

So... who the hell can play that?

Honestly... I'm not sure who I'd pick... I suppose the most important variable is what age they decide to make her at introduction.

If they go for a younger Carol, either an origin story, or relatively recently  come into her powers... Canonically, that would make her 31 years old or thereabouts.

Maybe Yvonne Strahovski?

She's still too small (only 5'9-1/2" and very fit, but not very muscular, and she's quite slim), and she has the "look" except being a bit too small breasted (not an insurmountable problem in hollywood). but I think she's got the chops for it.

If they went a little older, Julie Benz would be nearly perfect if she wasn't so small. She's only 5'4" though she's actually quite fit and muscular (and rather busty for her size).

Both play tough and competent very well, and both play badly damaged very well.

Charlize Theron might be good. Maybe Anna Torv.

Jeri Ryan, Peta Wilson, Tricia Helfer, Lucy Lawless, Dianne Kruger, Kristianna Loken, Abbie Cornish, Ali Larter... all physically right, but not right as actresses.

Lots of folks like the idea of Katee Sackhoff, who I love... but she just doesn't feel right for Carol Danvers to me. Also a lot of folks are speculating about Emily Blunt, who I also love... but again, she doesn't feel right to me.

Really, without knowing how old they want to go, it's impossible to figure out the right casting choice.

So... drop dead choices?

I'm gonna go with Yvonne Strahovski, and Chiwetel Ejiofor... but I'm really iffy on both. I'm willing to be convinced otherwise.