journal

OMIGOD!! Bush was on Vacation?!?

Bush Cancels Vacation to Focus on Relief - Yahoo! News

Bush was on vacation?!? Isn't there, like, a war on? He was knockin' back 'ritas while Our Boys were dodging bullets???!!!!11!!oneone?

Outrageous!

And before anyone gets snarky, I *know* he was on vacation. What gets me is how he cancels his vacation ONE DAY EARLY and gets to look like he's making some big sacrifice.

Anger is.

Nothing like having a bunch of wingnuts prove my point

A couple of days ago, I posted about how atheists seemed more thoughtful in their responses. Today I ran across a bunch of yokels helping me prove my point.

Noble Cause = Political Capital

George W. Bush's Noble Cause - 'Political Capital'

It's becoming increasingly clear that the way Bush lied us into invading Iraq, particularly the timing of it all (ginning it up just before the 2002 midterm elections), was done largely so Republicans could win take back the Senate in 2002 after losing it because of Jim Jeffords' defection, and so Bush could win the White House in the election of 2004.

'nuff said.

Carwash!

Ok. I can handle washing a car. Or two. But three cars and a boat? Sheesh.

The x5 and the boat are for sale, though, so I probably don't have to deal with then too much longer.

Actually, the boat isn't just getting washed. I'm also cleaning the cabin, lubing the axles, installing lines led aft, shortening the stays to improve perf, adding ballast up front to do the same, fixing some wiring and a busted fairlead, and replacing some lines.

After all that work, can you blame me if I'm tempted to keep it after all?

Well Written Rants and Responses

I think we atheists often tend to think ourselves (mildly) superior, though not to the extent the religious folks think of themselves as superior to non-believers.

One thing, though, is certain: the typical atheist has thought about religion a helluva lot more than the typical bible thumper. They're positions tend to be well thought out, usually independently. Religion is almost always a result of indoctrination, whereas Atheism is almost always the conclusion of long, deep reasoning.

This is evident when you read stuff
written by atheists.

It may be polished up and packaged as God and Country, but no matter what you call it, enough blood was spilt in the name of religion last century alone to fill Chesapeake Bay. And no matter how you try to get away from it, no matter where you go, there's another devious shyster, or worse yet someone who really believes this shit, pounding on your door, calling you on the phone, doing their best to overpower your faculties of common sense and drag you off into their personal, ridiculous, psychotic, supernatural drama.

Ok, so that was kinda rantish. A religious rant is usually met with bible thumping, amens, halleluyas, what have you.

Look at some of the responses this guy got:

The return to fundamentalism seen in the current monotheistic religions represents a return to the strategies that worked when it was just other gods whose asses were getting kicked. Unfortunately, now it is secularism and science and modernity in general that possess the threatening ideas which loosen the bonds of religious communities. There is a very clear reason that american mullahs are demanding the subordination of democracy to morality--seen in the demonization of homosexuals, liberals, and popular culture in general, and seen particularly in the battle against abortion and stem cell research. They idea that people can choose for themselves what is and is not moral is the death meme for traditional tribal religions.

That almost sounds like a quote from a erudite book... and its a comment. And...

Fundamentalist leaders realize that their religions are in dire threat of extenction within a generation if they do not act against competing ideas. First, they specify the apostasy and heresy that is intolerable (homosexuality, abortion, evolution, liberalism); then, they sanction the ostracizing, demonization, and even killing of individuals, to get folks used to the idea. They embrace the killing of identified outsiders, and extoll the noble sacrifice of group members who die killing others. If they then have to sanction the killing of additional multitudes, well, they have history as their guide.

'nuff said.

Blast from The Past

Engadget 1985 - Engadget - www.engadget.com

Aweso!

The embarrasing yet cool part is that I've owned/used/lusted after most of these. Moreover, back in '85 I was cruzin' the BBS scene using my PCjr with my screamin' (borrowed) 300 bauder.... woohoo! ASCII porn, early demo scene hacking, apple ][e crackin... what can I say... good times :)

Omigod! The FSM!

My laptop has been visited by the Flying Spaghetti Monster, hallowed be Its name! His Image Has Appeared (in my cable nest)! I have been Touched by his Noodly Appendage!

I wonder how I can make money off this on Ebay...

Fwd: Last sail?

Possibly my last sail on Refugio... Great sail, though... 20kt+ bliss...

A Picture Share!

Testing treo

Science is Wacko

Found this on Randi's excellent site.

Towards the end of the page, Steve Champeon is quoted at length regarding the ID-evolution debate.

Choice quote from the quote:

It's not a debate – it's a querulous mob looking for comfort. And no amount of pretending that "intelligent design" is anything else will bring forth a "debate." You cannot reason with those to whom reason is a stranger, or with those driven by fear and ignorance. You can only, at best, make a contrasting emotional appeal, one which is likely to fail due to the underlying fact of the matter, which is that many people hold ludicrous beliefs; those beliefs are not remotely systematized nor falsifiable, and ultimately in any honest person must be shed as the comforts of a younger and more ignorant child, species, culture, or community.

Recently, I had a disturbing conversation with my nephews: it seems they had heard from their mom that I was an atheist. They asked whether it was true that I thought 'all the world was science, and there was no god, etc'.

I was flabbergasted, and not really prepared to discuss metaphysics with 13 year olds. Also, I didn't want my sister-in-law pissed at me or anything. So I tried to explain that the world can't *be* all science, because science isn't a thing, its a way to answer questions about the physical, observable world.

Twenty frustrating minutes later, I finally came to the conclusion that no one had EVER explained what scientific thought was to them, and they hadn't a clue. And they fared no better, walking away muttering about 'tio and his wacko science'.

Since heretofore I had only discussed such things with my kids (never directly mentioning god or God or anything - they need a lot more grounding before we get to that one) and since I had been describing scientific ways to answer questions since they learned how to ASK questions, I guess I assumed everyone was like that.

But maybe (scary thought) very FEW people are like that. Maybe the majority of people regard rational thinking as 'wacko'. Maybe most of the rest are willing to use these 'wacko' ideas (since we DID seem to get cellphones and such to work) but aren't willing to trust them.

How else do you explain creationist engineers? What about doctors who believe it is God's Will (tm) that we continue to multiply unabated, since God Created the World For Us, Sez It Right There In The Bible? I know people like this - people who use the power and abilities granted them by scientific processes, but don't buy the whole science thing.

Scary thought.

You have a new Picture Mail

happy dog

Bush Deliberately Misses the Point - duh

Recently, Bush finally responded (briefly) to Sheehan's presence, saying:

"I thought long and hard about her position. I have heard her position from others, which is ‘get out of Iraq now’. It would be a mistake for the security of this country."

This is blather. Bullshit. Wool over the fucking eyes. Moreover, EVERY PART OF THAT STATEMENT is false.

This is what Cindy Sheehan wants:

"I don't believe [Bush's] phony excuses for the war [...] I want him to tell me why my son died. [...] If he gave the real answer, people in this country would be outraged - if he told people it was to make his buddies rich, that it was about oil."

Seems simple enough, no? Hard to miss, that.

Listen, all politicians resort to a little FUD (fear, uncertainty, doubt) from time to time. This I recognize. It's just that Bush is more blatant about targeting the "less informed" (or since we're being blatant and all, "idiots"). I feel ashamed for the minority (yay!) of Americans who are too stupid realize how little Bush thinks of them. Oh wait... I guess Bush's opinion about their intelligence is right on. I mean, it's a truism: if Bush assumes you're an idiot, and you buy his BS, then you are an idiot, aintcha?

BTW, found a very nice, non-ranty writeup on this very issue:
TomPaine.com - Consequences And Camp-Outs

Booyah!

Bring it...

No Relief in Sight for Gasoline Prices - Yahoo! News

Screw OPEC

OK. $3.05 for a gallon of gas got me thinking: time to join the birkenstock-wearin-granola-eatin-vegan-huggin Prius driving legions.

Picked it up this morning. And Tito, remember: imitation is the sincerest form of flattery :) I'm glad that if I have to imitate someone, it's you...

Of course, being cleared for driving in the carpool lane AND getting free downtown parking helped convince me too :)

You have a new Picture Mail

raped!

In defense of Atheism

This post, at Pharyngula concludes with one of the most lucid pleas I've seen:

if I can be comfortable with your belief that I'm going to burn in Hell, you should be able to cope with my belief that your god-bothering nonsense is a steaming heap o' BS.

The post is great, the comments are awesome (PZ, the blogger, defending himself against accusations that he's tossing out the baby with the bathwater):

And if the Bible is a baby, it is one codawful ugly fanged lizardoid monster baby, and I think we should not only throw it out with the bathwater, but maybe we ought to chop it up first and make sure the garbage disposal is powered up before we pull the plug and let its grisly bits swirl down the drain hole.

Everything in Moderation

How much is too much? [via BoingBoing]

A 28-year-old South Korean man died of heart failure minutes after completing a 50-hour session on a first-person-shooter game

The Economist on Video Games

When I saw The Economist's cover (an evil looking kid playing a video game) and accompanying title ("Breeding Evil"), I winced, bracing myself for another typically written-by-grandpa hackjob decrying the evils of Gaming.

Much to my suprise, the article was quite lucid, dealing with a broad range of issues, and ultimately describing the 'games are evil' phenomena to over-40 digital noobs.

Some choice passages:

“It's just a generational divide,” says Gerhard Florin, the European boss of Electronic Arts, the world's biggest games publisher. “It's people not knowing what they are talking about, because they have never played a game, accusing millions of gamers of being zombies or violent.” Digital natives who have played video games since childhood already regard them as a form of entertainment on a par with films and music. Older digital natives now have children of their own and enjoy playing video games with them.

Thats me.

What's more, plenty of games, far from encouraging degeneracy, are morally complex, subtle and, very possibly, improving. Many now explicitly require players to choose whether to be good or evil, and their choices determine how the game they are playing develops.

In “Black & White”, for example, the player must groom a creature whose behaviour and form reflects his moral choices (get it wrong and the results can be ugly—see the illustration). Several games based on the “Star Wars” movies require players to choose between the light and dark sides of the Force, equivalent to good and evil. Perhaps most striking is the sequence in “Halo 2”, a bestselling shoot-'em-up, in which the player must take the role of an alien. Having previously seen aliens as faceless enemies, notes Paul Jackson of Forrester, a consultancy, “suddenly you are asked to empathise with the enemy's position. It's very interesting. Games are much more complex than the critics realise.”

We (my children and I) have played all 3 games, and they were all deep, involved, complex, and engaging.

Let the kids decide...

Wavering on the intelligent design vs. evolution question? Maybe you think we should abdicate our responsibility as adults, and let our kids figure it out. Why stop there, though?

Video Games are Good For You

Thanks to Raist for pointing this one out.

The great secret of today's video games that has been lost in the moral panic over "Grand Theft Auto" is how difficult the games have become. That difficulty is not merely a question of hand-eye coordination; most of today's games force kids to learn complex rule systems, master challenging new interfaces, follow dozens of shifting variables in real time and prioritize between multiple objectives.

I frequently hash this out with my wife, who is concerned with the amount of time my kids spend playing video games. We limit how much they play, and they limit themselves naturally (they eventually grow bored), but I just don't see anything wrong with playing them. Consider:

• I play with them, sometimes cooperatively, sometimes competitively. It's something we share, something we have in common. When dads take the kids out to toss a ball, they'll do it for 20-30 minutes, and the extent of the experience was ball-tossing. I play with my kids for hours, and the shared experience may involve military strategy, cooperative monster slaying, or (really tough) mystery solving.
• The games my kids play are *complex*, much more complex than anything I as a kid played. My eight year old coordinates flank ambushes with my ten year old to whip the computer. They didn't read this somewhere, they invented it. Do you remember inventing military stratagems as a kid? I sure don't.
• Today's games are social. If you're playing each other, you're interacting. If you're playing the computer, you're usually cooperating with other people.
• Today's games encourage creativity. Remember playing with GI Joes, staging a battle, then half-assedly throwing stuff around? My kids do that, except they design whole cities (RTS level editors like Age of Mythology's), or whole houses (Sims2). Then they press a button, and the whole thing comes alive! Thats like, a whole order of magnitude (or two) more complex and involved than plastic toy soldiers.

So, when my kids hand me my ass on a platter when playing Halo2, after figuring out that they need to team up to beat me, I beam with pride.

BTW, a caveat: we don't JUST play video games. My kids are fit, love the outdoors, are karate madmen, ride horses, tumble around with dogs, kayak, hike, etc. What I'm saying is that video games are GOOD for you, they teach, and expand your thinking.

I can barely wait to see what my grandkids will be capable of.

Spammers are the New Osama

Having just come back from a 5 week vacation, I fully expected some tasks would be awaiting me: restocking the fridge, getting my mail, tending the patch of grass the broken sprinkler wasn't quite getting to, etc.

I even expected there'd be a bit of spam waiting for me.

I did NOT expect 4000+ emails. 2000+ Blog comments. 40lbs of junk mail.

Spammers are scum. They are the lowest of the low.

Here are a few things I think spammers should know:

1. If you have to tweak your grammar to get past my spam filter, you've already lost. I will not buy anything you are selling, ever.

2. I'm not going to send some guy money, especially if he starts his emails with 'Godday Sir!' or 'Many Blessing, Kind sir'.

3. I'm not going to sell you my boat, even over asking price, if I have to ship it to London, or Nigeria, or wherever.

4. I'm never EVER going to respond to junk mail. This even applies to stuff I want. The Nation ain't getting renewed. Neither is any magazine that sends me junk mail.

5. I'm not going to refi with you if you send me junk. Duh. If you send me an official-looking letter which tricks me into opening it, you're just going to annoy me, not get my business. See #1: you've already lost.

6. This goes doubly for credit card offers. I'm just waiting to sue some spamming credit card company over identity theft. I haven't applied for a new card in like 8 years, what makes you think your stupid offer is going to change my mind?

Fucking assholes.

ps. In the process of deleting thousands of comments and email, I may have deleted some legitimate ones (damn mothafuckin spammers). If so, my apologies.