A lot of writing on the web indicates that Cho Seung-Hui had an explosion or a meltdown and they wonder what the specific cause of that meltdown was.
This is a good example from CNN 360 blog:
Then something happened. Whatever was boiling inside Cho exploded with lethal fury. In the ultimate act of hatred, he destroyed even himself, leaving others to decipher the ultimate question: Why?-- By Jill Dougherty, U.S. Affairs Editor for CNN International
This would indicate that the deaths on the campus of Virginia Tech were 2nd degree murders; however, this is untrue.
You simply have to look at the information. There was a receipt in Cho's backpack for the gun he used. It was dated in March. One would assume he purchased a generous amount of ammunition at that time as well.
As indicated in this article , Cho waited 5 weeks before using the gun to kill his fellow students and teachers at Virginia Tech. According to his teachers, Cho was intelligent if off-balance. The purchase of the gun and the ammunition indicates premeditation. There was no 'moment' where some action like flying doves in Mars attacks set him off to kill a bunch of people. Like Mars Attacks, Cho and the aliens always planned to kill a bunch of people.
He isn't a marksman. He really didn't have a legitimate reason for purchasing a handgun. His life wasn't threatened, theft while prevalent in schools usually isn't enough to want to own a gun for prevention and bringing a fun on campus is most likely illegal and certainly against the school's rules.
So, why would you buy a large number of rounds for a gun (even if we grant the point that he had a reasonable reason to buy the gun)? If you need to protect yourself, you might buy enough rounds to fill a clip. That's all you need. By the time you've gone through a clip of ammunition you are either dead, killed the intruder or put a bunch of holes in the wall. It is pretty unlikely that he refilled a single clip every time he needed to reload, either. He probably purchased multiple clips, so that he could reload as quickly as possible.
So, what does all this mean? Gun purchase, huge number of rounds, probable multiple clips....? It means it was premeditated. He was planning on doing it sometime. It was only a matter how how badly he felt that day that he decided that he was going to punish all these people for being who they are...
After all, he came from Korea. There is little doubt in my mind that life was considerably harder for him then in his formative years. To see the massive amount of waste in American culture, the resources frittered away that could easily help his people and then on top of that... How they reject him and how intent he was on doing things. That women would reject his advances and increase the feelings that he doesn't belong here, that there is no woman for him in the future.
I can see his side all too well; unfortunately, no one ever told him that the way things are - is not the way things will always be. His parents never drilled in to him that the most important thing in life was the future of humanity and not the future of self. Really, the self is so small in the enormous tide of billions of human beings. I know we like to think that we are individuals, that we are special and no doubt I suffer from that delusion as well. But when it comes down to it, this idea of self-importance probably tore in to Cho when faced with the outward evidence that he didn't matter, that all the suffering he saw didn't matter in Korea and that the point of all the money in the world appeared to be...a bunch of rich kids spending their money and wasting their time fooling around.
But the point of this entry is simple. Cho planned this horrible event. It was not a crime of passion or a lack of control. I'm sure we'll see more people speaking in the future of a Cho shooting people with an emotionless look on his face (much like the look on his face in any number of pictures on the web now. He probably felt hopeless, like he wasn't important struggle with the mental attitude that he must be important and probably felt the tide of College kids doing unimportant things and didn't want to be swept in to that tide. How could he possible stop being assimilated in to this culture?
The sad point is that many of the people he killed had infinite horizons ahead of them. Academic achievers that could have done an unknown amount of good for human society - the human future. A future like a Chinese proverb of many ants working together to achieve greatness. We may not always cooperate well together, but certainly we are better off in many ways in the present than humanity has ever been in the past.
Cho himself had a future. Perhaps if he controlled his anger and continued to write he could have been the next horror author that send chills down readers spines. But now, there is nothing.
Wednesday, April 18, 2007
Virginia Tech incident and Gun Control
I've been writing some long posts today, but I think this one will be short and simple.
I'm not particularly a gun-control advocate. I think everything to a point needs to be controlled, the more hazard involved the more control might be advised.
So, Cho goes and purchases a gun and a large amount of ammunition from a gun store at age 23. This is perfectly legal under present laws. Some politicians are taking the time right now to put their foot down and say that better gun control laws will not provide any more benefit.
I think; however, that they are wrong. Specifically on two points that wouldn't be particularly restrictive.
1) I have a friend who is 24, he cannot rent a car. Cho, would not be allowed to rent a car unless he put down $500 payment (in addition to normal rental charges) that he would not get back. My friend had need of a rental car because he traveled to Florida for flight school. No car was available to him. So, let's be straight about this, if it is a business and it MAY cost them money it justifies greater control than a person who wants to purchase a gun which is designed to kill. This doesn't make sense to me. One of these items needs to give, either the age for renting a car or the age for purchasing a gun. Both have high requirements for responsibility. Both can kill. Only one will cost a business a lot of money if it gets wrecked or used improperly. Only one has a higher age requirement for use.
2) It is all well and good that people want to be able to walk in to a store and purchase a gun and walk out that day. However, it sounds like Cho didn't have a single friend and that is most likely part of the profile for him performing the actions that he did. Is it such a burden that if you go to purchase a gun that at least one other person be with you and legally sign that you have known the person for at least 3 years and that you know of no reason that the person purchasing the gun would use it on a person except in self-defense conditions? (for handguns, for hunting rifles, the requirements would be written slightly different)
I don't think the above are drastic changes to what happens when someone wants to buy a gun.
Oh, and one more thing. The victims the doctors saw that were alive all had multiple gun shot wounds. Don't you think that means that the dead victims had multiple gun shot wounds? The doctors indicated that there were at least 3 wounds per person in the hospital.
So, let's do a little math. Cho bought (at least) 17 [injured] * 3 (51) + 32 [dead] * 3 (96) = (147) rounds of ammunition. Now, don't get me wrong, but he bought the gun in March, so he didn't spread the purchase of the ammo across a lot of time - don't you think it should have raised an eyebrow that he bought almost 150 rounds of ammunition? Wouldn't someone think to ask what purpose do they need to have that much ammunition? It doesn't mean that buying that much ammunition needs to be illegal; however, if you can't answer that question with a "I'm going to a target range with a couple buddies and we are practicing our shooting abilities." or something similar I think the shop keep should be thinking about something more than just how much money he is going to make off the sale.
Even some relatively mild controls would have prevented this situation from happening - or at least happening the way it did.
I'm not particularly a gun-control advocate. I think everything to a point needs to be controlled, the more hazard involved the more control might be advised.
So, Cho goes and purchases a gun and a large amount of ammunition from a gun store at age 23. This is perfectly legal under present laws. Some politicians are taking the time right now to put their foot down and say that better gun control laws will not provide any more benefit.
I think; however, that they are wrong. Specifically on two points that wouldn't be particularly restrictive.
1) I have a friend who is 24, he cannot rent a car. Cho, would not be allowed to rent a car unless he put down $500 payment (in addition to normal rental charges) that he would not get back. My friend had need of a rental car because he traveled to Florida for flight school. No car was available to him. So, let's be straight about this, if it is a business and it MAY cost them money it justifies greater control than a person who wants to purchase a gun which is designed to kill. This doesn't make sense to me. One of these items needs to give, either the age for renting a car or the age for purchasing a gun. Both have high requirements for responsibility. Both can kill. Only one will cost a business a lot of money if it gets wrecked or used improperly. Only one has a higher age requirement for use.
2) It is all well and good that people want to be able to walk in to a store and purchase a gun and walk out that day. However, it sounds like Cho didn't have a single friend and that is most likely part of the profile for him performing the actions that he did. Is it such a burden that if you go to purchase a gun that at least one other person be with you and legally sign that you have known the person for at least 3 years and that you know of no reason that the person purchasing the gun would use it on a person except in self-defense conditions? (for handguns, for hunting rifles, the requirements would be written slightly different)
I don't think the above are drastic changes to what happens when someone wants to buy a gun.
Oh, and one more thing. The victims the doctors saw that were alive all had multiple gun shot wounds. Don't you think that means that the dead victims had multiple gun shot wounds? The doctors indicated that there were at least 3 wounds per person in the hospital.
So, let's do a little math. Cho bought (at least) 17 [injured] * 3 (51) + 32 [dead] * 3 (96) = (147) rounds of ammunition. Now, don't get me wrong, but he bought the gun in March, so he didn't spread the purchase of the ammo across a lot of time - don't you think it should have raised an eyebrow that he bought almost 150 rounds of ammunition? Wouldn't someone think to ask what purpose do they need to have that much ammunition? It doesn't mean that buying that much ammunition needs to be illegal; however, if you can't answer that question with a "I'm going to a target range with a couple buddies and we are practicing our shooting abilities." or something similar I think the shop keep should be thinking about something more than just how much money he is going to make off the sale.
Even some relatively mild controls would have prevented this situation from happening - or at least happening the way it did.
Cho Seung-Hui and Indicators of Psychotic Anger
A lot of information is coming out about Cho Seung-Hui. My earlier complaint about the faculty member of Virginia Tech not releasing his writing that was disturbing has been rectified, but not by her.
A picture is forming of a loner, who was very angry, and wrote in class about topics that showed his anger. It is mentioned by a former school-mate of his that Cho was a stereotype of the psychotic killer (or similar words).
But this picture can be very misleading. I have known some very f***ed up people - especially when I was younger, but none really turned out all that bad. Perhaps, I have led a sheltered life, but I don't think so.
The reality of the matter is that when I was younger I might have fit Cho's description, except that when people approached me and wanted to talk to me I broke out of my shell fairly easily. Of course, I can't say I was really angry about anything except that I didn't have a girlfriend and at that point in my life I often felt like I wasn't ever going to have a girlfriend. It happens when you graduate high school 5' 9.5" tall and 135 pounds. I was skinny as a rail and easily pushed around by just about everyone.
Fortunately, I never followed Cho's path, I was probably just needy. However, I suspect Cho is like many people out there or rather many people out there are like Cho. Only 1 in a very large number of people follow Cho's path to violence. This is why we don't have many shootings in colleges, but we probably do have many people that feel like Cho at certain points in their lives.
So, before people run around like crazy and reporting people they know that those people are just like Cho and going to pop their cork and kill a bunch of people take five minutes and cool it.
It should be realized that like medical conditions and other psychological conditions, many people have the symptoms that may appear like psychosis or a medical condition. That is because a lot of these conditions are inside of us, but to vastly lower degrees.
So, I'm afraid what Cho has done (not on purpose, most likely) is made it much more difficult for the creative student to write horror or horrific items. In Cho's case he apparently acted in a manner consistent with a person who was angry to the point of not being able to control it. That is an important point to keep in mind.
Each piece of writing has to be considered in its context. The context of the writing is the times we live in and the person writing the story. Writing about madness, death or any other subjects that people don't like to talk about is perfectly normal and stretches our minds. His schoolmate indicated that he wrote about things being used as weapons that he never imagined. Well, that's good in most writers cases, its bad when you think the writer might actually go and perform those actions.
This is similar to the Columbine shooting. Details of the lives of the shooters came out, the games they played on their game console, things they read and music they listened to. Well, so what? Many people fit that profile, few people (regardless of what they play on the gaming console, read or music they listen to) actually go around thinking it is a great idea to go and kill a bunch of people.
Life is very complex especially for humans. Humans are complex creatures by themselves and unpredictable when you take in to account humans interacting with humans. The same indicators in one person that means they are about to go crazy and kill a bunch of people might be the warm-up for another person for a good long game of Doom or a creative binge of writing.
So, if you are Angry that's good, it shows you are alive. Learn to control it and channel that energy in to something creative.
If you feel like you are closing in on madness, find people (professional or otherwise) that can talk to you and that care for you mutually. Hey, it might even be some people in a bar with no other commonality than they need to be able to talk to people before they descend into madness.
If you think you are psychotic, there is one last vital hope - that you care enough about humanity in general to seek help instead of deeping your psychosis.
A picture is forming of a loner, who was very angry, and wrote in class about topics that showed his anger. It is mentioned by a former school-mate of his that Cho was a stereotype of the psychotic killer (or similar words).
But this picture can be very misleading. I have known some very f***ed up people - especially when I was younger, but none really turned out all that bad. Perhaps, I have led a sheltered life, but I don't think so.
The reality of the matter is that when I was younger I might have fit Cho's description, except that when people approached me and wanted to talk to me I broke out of my shell fairly easily. Of course, I can't say I was really angry about anything except that I didn't have a girlfriend and at that point in my life I often felt like I wasn't ever going to have a girlfriend. It happens when you graduate high school 5' 9.5" tall and 135 pounds. I was skinny as a rail and easily pushed around by just about everyone.
Fortunately, I never followed Cho's path, I was probably just needy. However, I suspect Cho is like many people out there or rather many people out there are like Cho. Only 1 in a very large number of people follow Cho's path to violence. This is why we don't have many shootings in colleges, but we probably do have many people that feel like Cho at certain points in their lives.
So, before people run around like crazy and reporting people they know that those people are just like Cho and going to pop their cork and kill a bunch of people take five minutes and cool it.
It should be realized that like medical conditions and other psychological conditions, many people have the symptoms that may appear like psychosis or a medical condition. That is because a lot of these conditions are inside of us, but to vastly lower degrees.
So, I'm afraid what Cho has done (not on purpose, most likely) is made it much more difficult for the creative student to write horror or horrific items. In Cho's case he apparently acted in a manner consistent with a person who was angry to the point of not being able to control it. That is an important point to keep in mind.
Each piece of writing has to be considered in its context. The context of the writing is the times we live in and the person writing the story. Writing about madness, death or any other subjects that people don't like to talk about is perfectly normal and stretches our minds. His schoolmate indicated that he wrote about things being used as weapons that he never imagined. Well, that's good in most writers cases, its bad when you think the writer might actually go and perform those actions.
This is similar to the Columbine shooting. Details of the lives of the shooters came out, the games they played on their game console, things they read and music they listened to. Well, so what? Many people fit that profile, few people (regardless of what they play on the gaming console, read or music they listen to) actually go around thinking it is a great idea to go and kill a bunch of people.
Life is very complex especially for humans. Humans are complex creatures by themselves and unpredictable when you take in to account humans interacting with humans. The same indicators in one person that means they are about to go crazy and kill a bunch of people might be the warm-up for another person for a good long game of Doom or a creative binge of writing.
So, if you are Angry that's good, it shows you are alive. Learn to control it and channel that energy in to something creative.
If you feel like you are closing in on madness, find people (professional or otherwise) that can talk to you and that care for you mutually. Hey, it might even be some people in a bar with no other commonality than they need to be able to talk to people before they descend into madness.
If you think you are psychotic, there is one last vital hope - that you care enough about humanity in general to seek help instead of deeping your psychosis.
Tuesday, April 17, 2007
Christians Can Sometimes be Funny
This article, "The Best of Racists" is actually pretty funny in an ironic way.
I'll start with a paraphrase version of the article. Some remarks in parenthesis.
01) Don Imus said some racist things and got fired.
02) We all know that some forms of communication help people and some communicate hurt people. It appears that we support hurtful communication and suppress hurtful communication.
03) People who are religious have kids that do well in school. Oh, wait, let's quote the actual study where it says that people who belong to religion AND have an intact and stable family do well in school.
04) Highly religious minorities can outperform white students.
05) Therefore atheism is racist. (somehow #4 indicates #5)
06) Atheists are eugenicists because one atheist author, Margaret Sanger supported eugenics. Eugenics is racism.
07) Slavery was started by Christians
08) Slavery was ended by Christians
09) Atheists are cold people who write off large segments of humanity as having insufficiently endowed genetics
10) For a logically consistent atheist, altruism enables mediocrity.
11) Christians love everybody. God loved us in to existence. The widow's mite is worth more than the whole treasury of the Temple. The best that is worst in use produce more than the intellectual elite can manufacture. (Please note, he is attaching intellectual elite to atheism here)
12) The intellectual elite knows this, but is stubborn and won't realize their own weakness.
13) People who cannot see beyond the skin (atheists are who we are talking about) represent a danger to those who believe and can see beyond the skin.
14) Atheists are going to destroy the world.
So, let's take it point by point.
01) Don Imus said something that was racist and got fired for it. Well, according to a writer on CNN.com, what Imus said wasn't so much racist as sexist. What Imus said wasn't illegal. It was; however, something that corporate entities tied to his show don't want to be associated with and that is why he got fired. What the author is attempting to do in this piece is attack free speech. The very free speech that allows him to write the referenced article.
The article Steve Kellmeyer wrote; however, isn't free speech. It is hate speech. What he wrote as much as he derides Imus, is far worse. I will prove that it is hate speech and that his article is a little bit confused.
02) He suggests that we all 'know' what is right and wrong in terms of speech. But this simply isn't true. We are all very different people that share certain commonalities. What would be terribly insulting to one person is humorous and a learning episode to another person who enjoys frank discussion. This idea is simply the idea that there is a universal right and wrong and that people flaunt it actively. Haven't we all had that incident where we have said something to another person that we thought would be funny and they got insulted? Now, I'm not considering what Imus said to be in this category, I'm just challenging this idea that Steve Kellmeyer is presenting as a premise and saying that he is wrong.
03) People who are religious have kids that do well in school. The first way Mr. Kellmeyer presents this is to appear that religion is the only component in this equation. Later quotes in his article and statements he himself make water this down. A stable and intact family play a huge role in this matter. Anyone who has a friend or has endured parents getting divorced I am sure can attest to the fact that divorce has an effect as well as single parent families.
04) Highly religious minorities can outperform white students. Now this is a paraphrase, but you have to understand that inherent in this statement is a bit of racial superiority. Maybe we should re-state this a bit and say that highly religious white students can do as well as Asian students. It is an implicit statement of superiority.
05) Therefore atheism is racist. Somehow - our author seems to think that #4 indicates that atheists are racist. If we look at #4 it basically states: The greater the religion in a person the better they will do in school. The appropriate corollary to this is not that atheists are racists. It should be that atheists don't do well in school or in fact that atheists do the worst in school.
06) Atheists are eugenicists because one atheist author, Margaret Sanger supported eugenics. Eugenics is racism. I'm not exactly sure where Mr. Kellmeyer is getting his information. I think this is his attempt to tie atheism to Hitler. Who knows? I am an atheist as are many people that I know online and in the real world. None are eugenicists. I know one online that is incredibly racist. Here is the problem with Mr. Kellmeyer's assertion: You can't classify an entire group of people on the basis of a single individual Perhaps if he would like to associate atheism with eugenics and racism he'd like anyone with historical knowledge to trot out the hundreds of notable Christians that were in favor of slavery, racism and characterize all Christians as just like those individuals. Perhaps we should think that all Christians will take a person and tie them to the back of a pick-up truck and drive around since Chrisitians did that relatively recently to someone that they didn't like. We can go on further about this. When you get statistics about churches what do you find? That churches are racist. You have your black churches, your white churches and your Korean churches, but guess what, finding a church that is multi-racial is very hard to find. I don't know what Christians do to maintain this - sit and watch in the churches parking lot before deciding to go in and look at the race of the people going in the church? Oh, dog, its a black church, honey drive to the next church!!!
07) Slavery was started by Christians. This is true.
08) Slavery was ended by Christians. This is only partially true. Certainly Christian motivations for getting rid of slavery weren't based in the bible which appears to approve of slavery and make recommendations on how it should be performed and how people who are slaves should behave. There is a really good book by Susan Jacoby: Freethinkers: A History of American Secularism. It goes over in detail the abolition movement and women's suffrage. The origin of these ideas comes from the enlightenment, not the bible or Christianity. Later, these ideas would take hold in Christians that it is wrong to enslave people and wrong to not allow them to vote because of their sex and wrong to treat people differently on the basis of race.
09) Atheists are cold people who write off large segments of humanity as having insufficiently endowed genetics - this is really the author trying to set up moral superiority over atheists. He continues to use the racism card with regard to atheism, but where is he really going with calling atheists racists. We'll see...
10) For a logically consistent atheist, altruism enables mediocrity. Well, he's staying on the atheists must be racists kick here. He probably thinks that all atheists that aren't racists aren't really atheists. Most atheists can be called secular humanists in terms of morality. Secular Humanism is best described as the philosophy of utilitarianism. This philosophy resides in the idea of doing what is best for humanity. Is it best for humanity to pursue an elitist eugenic movement creating a race of super humans? Not really. Such a path would really only produce more strife within humanity. Now to improve humanity in general? Yes, that is a good thing. Genetically? Maybe, but certainly not now when our knowledge of genetics is in its infancy. In utilitarianism, the mediocre plays a vital role in creating a stable society. In that way, we should all hope to be mediocre. Those who have more talents, should use those talents toward improving the world after reaching a certain point in personal stability.
11) Christians love everybody. God loved us in to existence. The widow's mite is worth more than the whole treasury of the Temple. The best that is worst in use produce more than the intellectual elite can manufacture. (Please note, he is attaching intellectual elite to atheism here)
It should be noted that our writer isn't very consistent. He goes from attacking atheists (invalidly and illogically) to attacking the intellectual elite. His implication is that the 'intellectual elite' are atheists. Perhaps this intellectual elite is running the country right now? Oh, wait, you can't possibly be elected to office if you are an open atheist. So, who is running the country (which is apparently headed for destruction)? Well, its Christians. Just like George W Bush. So, somehow with none of the power atheists and the so-called intellectual elite receive the blame for the purported downward spiral of our country. Another problem with his statement is that it is all too clearly a lie. If it wasn't a lie then there wouldn't be any homeless people on the streets because the 85% Christian country would raid all the church coffers in a second to ensure that everyone had shelter and food. This isn't the case. The case is that the vast majority of churches are social clubs with a nice non-profit tax umbrella.
12) The intellectual elite knows this (that it is inadequate and doesn't care for the average person), but is stubborn and won't realize their own weakness. This is just plain an insulting passage designed to bully people to his side of the argument, because after all who wants to be a bad person and these intellectual elitists are the worst there are... This is a simple nudge at dehumanizing the opponent.
13) People who cannot see beyond the skin (atheists are who we are talking about) represent a danger to those who believe and can see beyond the skin.
This is funny, please see my remarks above about the racial components of churches. Go ahead, watch television and these churches on TV, black preacher, black people in the audience, white preacher, white people in the audience and a couple of token black people. I'm not exactly sure when this happened, but it seems like it is ok for a few clean-cut black people to be in a white church, but not for white people to be in a white church.
14) Atheists are going to destroy the world. This isn't exactly what he says in the last paragraph. But the article is all about laying a case against atheists and the 'intellectual elite' whoever they may be. Here he makes a claim that 'society as we know it will be destroyed'. Now if you are a tried and true follower, what exactly do you do if you believe something is going to destroy society? You destroy it first. What is it? Atheists and the intellectual elite. He even spells it out 'these people are the greatest danger.'
So, this article is a hate article. Hate the atheists because they are racists and they are going to destroy the world.
What do you expect someone who reads this article and is a believer of everything this guy has to say and meets an atheist? You know, if the person is a go-getter, a person that does things about the wrongs in society, I know what they would do. Let's hope 'they' don't meet me.
Personally, I've got two kids, wife, two dogs, three cats and a snake that need me to be their sole provider. I don't want to be killed because some jackass that reads this article and is a tried and true believer thinks he's saving the world from the evil atheists.
What's more, Steve Kellmeyer's article is hate speech, and hate speech is not protected speech, it is illegal. Perhaps he'd like to post known atheist names on his website and cross them out when people kill them.
I'll start with a paraphrase version of the article. Some remarks in parenthesis.
01) Don Imus said some racist things and got fired.
02) We all know that some forms of communication help people and some communicate hurt people. It appears that we support hurtful communication and suppress hurtful communication.
03) People who are religious have kids that do well in school. Oh, wait, let's quote the actual study where it says that people who belong to religion AND have an intact and stable family do well in school.
04) Highly religious minorities can outperform white students.
05) Therefore atheism is racist. (somehow #4 indicates #5)
06) Atheists are eugenicists because one atheist author, Margaret Sanger supported eugenics. Eugenics is racism.
07) Slavery was started by Christians
08) Slavery was ended by Christians
09) Atheists are cold people who write off large segments of humanity as having insufficiently endowed genetics
10) For a logically consistent atheist, altruism enables mediocrity.
11) Christians love everybody. God loved us in to existence. The widow's mite is worth more than the whole treasury of the Temple. The best that is worst in use produce more than the intellectual elite can manufacture. (Please note, he is attaching intellectual elite to atheism here)
12) The intellectual elite knows this, but is stubborn and won't realize their own weakness.
13) People who cannot see beyond the skin (atheists are who we are talking about) represent a danger to those who believe and can see beyond the skin.
14) Atheists are going to destroy the world.
So, let's take it point by point.
01) Don Imus said something that was racist and got fired for it. Well, according to a writer on CNN.com, what Imus said wasn't so much racist as sexist. What Imus said wasn't illegal. It was; however, something that corporate entities tied to his show don't want to be associated with and that is why he got fired. What the author is attempting to do in this piece is attack free speech. The very free speech that allows him to write the referenced article.
The article Steve Kellmeyer wrote; however, isn't free speech. It is hate speech. What he wrote as much as he derides Imus, is far worse. I will prove that it is hate speech and that his article is a little bit confused.
02) He suggests that we all 'know' what is right and wrong in terms of speech. But this simply isn't true. We are all very different people that share certain commonalities. What would be terribly insulting to one person is humorous and a learning episode to another person who enjoys frank discussion. This idea is simply the idea that there is a universal right and wrong and that people flaunt it actively. Haven't we all had that incident where we have said something to another person that we thought would be funny and they got insulted? Now, I'm not considering what Imus said to be in this category, I'm just challenging this idea that Steve Kellmeyer is presenting as a premise and saying that he is wrong.
03) People who are religious have kids that do well in school. The first way Mr. Kellmeyer presents this is to appear that religion is the only component in this equation. Later quotes in his article and statements he himself make water this down. A stable and intact family play a huge role in this matter. Anyone who has a friend or has endured parents getting divorced I am sure can attest to the fact that divorce has an effect as well as single parent families.
04) Highly religious minorities can outperform white students. Now this is a paraphrase, but you have to understand that inherent in this statement is a bit of racial superiority. Maybe we should re-state this a bit and say that highly religious white students can do as well as Asian students. It is an implicit statement of superiority.
05) Therefore atheism is racist. Somehow - our author seems to think that #4 indicates that atheists are racist. If we look at #4 it basically states: The greater the religion in a person the better they will do in school. The appropriate corollary to this is not that atheists are racists. It should be that atheists don't do well in school or in fact that atheists do the worst in school.
06) Atheists are eugenicists because one atheist author, Margaret Sanger supported eugenics. Eugenics is racism. I'm not exactly sure where Mr. Kellmeyer is getting his information. I think this is his attempt to tie atheism to Hitler. Who knows? I am an atheist as are many people that I know online and in the real world. None are eugenicists. I know one online that is incredibly racist. Here is the problem with Mr. Kellmeyer's assertion: You can't classify an entire group of people on the basis of a single individual Perhaps if he would like to associate atheism with eugenics and racism he'd like anyone with historical knowledge to trot out the hundreds of notable Christians that were in favor of slavery, racism and characterize all Christians as just like those individuals. Perhaps we should think that all Christians will take a person and tie them to the back of a pick-up truck and drive around since Chrisitians did that relatively recently to someone that they didn't like. We can go on further about this. When you get statistics about churches what do you find? That churches are racist. You have your black churches, your white churches and your Korean churches, but guess what, finding a church that is multi-racial is very hard to find. I don't know what Christians do to maintain this - sit and watch in the churches parking lot before deciding to go in and look at the race of the people going in the church? Oh, dog, its a black church, honey drive to the next church!!!
07) Slavery was started by Christians. This is true.
08) Slavery was ended by Christians. This is only partially true. Certainly Christian motivations for getting rid of slavery weren't based in the bible which appears to approve of slavery and make recommendations on how it should be performed and how people who are slaves should behave. There is a really good book by Susan Jacoby: Freethinkers: A History of American Secularism. It goes over in detail the abolition movement and women's suffrage. The origin of these ideas comes from the enlightenment, not the bible or Christianity. Later, these ideas would take hold in Christians that it is wrong to enslave people and wrong to not allow them to vote because of their sex and wrong to treat people differently on the basis of race.
09) Atheists are cold people who write off large segments of humanity as having insufficiently endowed genetics - this is really the author trying to set up moral superiority over atheists. He continues to use the racism card with regard to atheism, but where is he really going with calling atheists racists. We'll see...
10) For a logically consistent atheist, altruism enables mediocrity. Well, he's staying on the atheists must be racists kick here. He probably thinks that all atheists that aren't racists aren't really atheists. Most atheists can be called secular humanists in terms of morality. Secular Humanism is best described as the philosophy of utilitarianism. This philosophy resides in the idea of doing what is best for humanity. Is it best for humanity to pursue an elitist eugenic movement creating a race of super humans? Not really. Such a path would really only produce more strife within humanity. Now to improve humanity in general? Yes, that is a good thing. Genetically? Maybe, but certainly not now when our knowledge of genetics is in its infancy. In utilitarianism, the mediocre plays a vital role in creating a stable society. In that way, we should all hope to be mediocre. Those who have more talents, should use those talents toward improving the world after reaching a certain point in personal stability.
11) Christians love everybody. God loved us in to existence. The widow's mite is worth more than the whole treasury of the Temple. The best that is worst in use produce more than the intellectual elite can manufacture. (Please note, he is attaching intellectual elite to atheism here)
It should be noted that our writer isn't very consistent. He goes from attacking atheists (invalidly and illogically) to attacking the intellectual elite. His implication is that the 'intellectual elite' are atheists. Perhaps this intellectual elite is running the country right now? Oh, wait, you can't possibly be elected to office if you are an open atheist. So, who is running the country (which is apparently headed for destruction)? Well, its Christians. Just like George W Bush. So, somehow with none of the power atheists and the so-called intellectual elite receive the blame for the purported downward spiral of our country. Another problem with his statement is that it is all too clearly a lie. If it wasn't a lie then there wouldn't be any homeless people on the streets because the 85% Christian country would raid all the church coffers in a second to ensure that everyone had shelter and food. This isn't the case. The case is that the vast majority of churches are social clubs with a nice non-profit tax umbrella.
12) The intellectual elite knows this (that it is inadequate and doesn't care for the average person), but is stubborn and won't realize their own weakness. This is just plain an insulting passage designed to bully people to his side of the argument, because after all who wants to be a bad person and these intellectual elitists are the worst there are... This is a simple nudge at dehumanizing the opponent.
13) People who cannot see beyond the skin (atheists are who we are talking about) represent a danger to those who believe and can see beyond the skin.
This is funny, please see my remarks above about the racial components of churches. Go ahead, watch television and these churches on TV, black preacher, black people in the audience, white preacher, white people in the audience and a couple of token black people. I'm not exactly sure when this happened, but it seems like it is ok for a few clean-cut black people to be in a white church, but not for white people to be in a white church.
14) Atheists are going to destroy the world. This isn't exactly what he says in the last paragraph. But the article is all about laying a case against atheists and the 'intellectual elite' whoever they may be. Here he makes a claim that 'society as we know it will be destroyed'. Now if you are a tried and true follower, what exactly do you do if you believe something is going to destroy society? You destroy it first. What is it? Atheists and the intellectual elite. He even spells it out 'these people are the greatest danger.'
So, this article is a hate article. Hate the atheists because they are racists and they are going to destroy the world.
What do you expect someone who reads this article and is a believer of everything this guy has to say and meets an atheist? You know, if the person is a go-getter, a person that does things about the wrongs in society, I know what they would do. Let's hope 'they' don't meet me.
Personally, I've got two kids, wife, two dogs, three cats and a snake that need me to be their sole provider. I don't want to be killed because some jackass that reads this article and is a tried and true believer thinks he's saving the world from the evil atheists.
What's more, Steve Kellmeyer's article is hate speech, and hate speech is not protected speech, it is illegal. Perhaps he'd like to post known atheist names on his website and cross them out when people kill them.
Popular Science - Nuclear Power
There is an article in the current Popular Science magazine - May 2007, that indicates that a "new toxic-waste recycling process." will be tested in the United States of America.
Imagine my surprise when I continue to read the article and it is simply something the French have been doing for decades. This is basically using the nuclear waste produced in using nuclear power as a power source over and over again until at such point the fuel is completely spent and can be used no more.
During the process the amount of toxic radiation laden material is reduced and this reduces nuclear waste.
But this isn't a new process at least not on Earth. It might be new to the United States of America, but you know that is hardly surprising. We've been falling back on technology for the past 20 years or so, about the amount of time the French have been using this "new" process.
Imagine my surprise when I continue to read the article and it is simply something the French have been doing for decades. This is basically using the nuclear waste produced in using nuclear power as a power source over and over again until at such point the fuel is completely spent and can be used no more.
During the process the amount of toxic radiation laden material is reduced and this reduces nuclear waste.
But this isn't a new process at least not on Earth. It might be new to the United States of America, but you know that is hardly surprising. We've been falling back on technology for the past 20 years or so, about the amount of time the French have been using this "new" process.
Popular Science - The Future of the Car
Popular Science magazine in their current issue May 2007, is concentrated on the future of the car. This is only a logical topic as there was a Science Channel/Discovery Channel series recently about the future of the car "FutureCar".
Both the series and Popular Science go in to all the high technology that will go in to cars and Dr. Michio Kaku participates whom I have a deep respect. I've read his book Visions a few years back and enjoyed it thoroughly.
However, the problem with the Popular Science article, the FutureCar TV series and Dr. Michio Kaku's contributions to the FutureCar series is that they ignore simple physics. The point being that by not using a mechanical device to move a person you will always consume more energy for the weight of the mechanical device. This energy, unlike the energy that humans runs on is not always reusable or replaceable.
A large change may be required of society if it intends to keep the majority of its capabilities. We can either concentrate on keeping cars on the road and consuming less (but never zero) energy or we can concentrate on changing our infrastructure and our environment so that human power is what is necessary for most movements.
The way to accomplish this is by making vast cities called an arcology. An arcology is like a city, but most likely it would not have streets, businesses would be located close to residences and work wouldn't be far from home. This can be accomplished with buildings of many different formats, connected together by different types of rail and tubes where people can walk, run or cycle protected from the elements.
It would be a path to a healthier United States population as well, as those of us that can walk to work, will walk to work. It would remove a massive cause of pollution, the automobile from use (at least within the confines of an arcology.
Arcologies are also high on the use of alternative energies, as they can use whatever power source is available. It could start out using coal or whatever, but an alternative power source could be use and replace the current coal burning power plant.
The demise of the car would increase disposable income of the average person, as they would not have to pay for car insurance, car payments, car maintenance and they would gain the time that is typically lost by driving in a car every day.
The demise of the car would also be a huge safety win for humans. They would not die in car accidents, no one would be hit by cars walking across the street and the pollution created by cars would disappear. As a parent in northern NJ, I am always concerned about my child being hit by a car. It is so densely populated up here with so many cars that it is a grave concern to me. No one should ever have to live through losing their child through being hit by a car. An arcology is the path to the removal of this being possible.
Of course, there are technical and social barriers that we would have to overcome in order to create arcologies. Most of us don't want to live in apartments because you can hear all the people around you. However, I suspect that this can easily be solved by using appropriate materials to block the sounds of other people.
Everyone in the world doesn't have to live in an arcology. However, the greater a percentage that do live in arcologies would greatly alleviate many problems that confront humanity now and in the near future.
I suspect all this talk about future cars and all these great technologies is simply delaying the executioner of the car.
Both the series and Popular Science go in to all the high technology that will go in to cars and Dr. Michio Kaku participates whom I have a deep respect. I've read his book Visions a few years back and enjoyed it thoroughly.
However, the problem with the Popular Science article, the FutureCar TV series and Dr. Michio Kaku's contributions to the FutureCar series is that they ignore simple physics. The point being that by not using a mechanical device to move a person you will always consume more energy for the weight of the mechanical device. This energy, unlike the energy that humans runs on is not always reusable or replaceable.
A large change may be required of society if it intends to keep the majority of its capabilities. We can either concentrate on keeping cars on the road and consuming less (but never zero) energy or we can concentrate on changing our infrastructure and our environment so that human power is what is necessary for most movements.
The way to accomplish this is by making vast cities called an arcology. An arcology is like a city, but most likely it would not have streets, businesses would be located close to residences and work wouldn't be far from home. This can be accomplished with buildings of many different formats, connected together by different types of rail and tubes where people can walk, run or cycle protected from the elements.
It would be a path to a healthier United States population as well, as those of us that can walk to work, will walk to work. It would remove a massive cause of pollution, the automobile from use (at least within the confines of an arcology.
Arcologies are also high on the use of alternative energies, as they can use whatever power source is available. It could start out using coal or whatever, but an alternative power source could be use and replace the current coal burning power plant.
The demise of the car would increase disposable income of the average person, as they would not have to pay for car insurance, car payments, car maintenance and they would gain the time that is typically lost by driving in a car every day.
The demise of the car would also be a huge safety win for humans. They would not die in car accidents, no one would be hit by cars walking across the street and the pollution created by cars would disappear. As a parent in northern NJ, I am always concerned about my child being hit by a car. It is so densely populated up here with so many cars that it is a grave concern to me. No one should ever have to live through losing their child through being hit by a car. An arcology is the path to the removal of this being possible.
Of course, there are technical and social barriers that we would have to overcome in order to create arcologies. Most of us don't want to live in apartments because you can hear all the people around you. However, I suspect that this can easily be solved by using appropriate materials to block the sounds of other people.
Everyone in the world doesn't have to live in an arcology. However, the greater a percentage that do live in arcologies would greatly alleviate many problems that confront humanity now and in the near future.
I suspect all this talk about future cars and all these great technologies is simply delaying the executioner of the car.
Mac Mini Problem
Well, as I previously mentioned in this blog, we purchased a Mac Mini for my father-in-law. It works great as a computer except for one major problem. The 17" LCD display I decided he should use over his old 15" CRT, doesn't work with it. After the initial Mac startup gray screen the monitor goes to "No Signal".
So, rather fortunately, we had his 15" monitor available and we connected it to that monitor and it works perfectly. There are a number of blogs and articles out there on this subject, which seems to indicate that there is no solution. A German Company in some articles is referenced as indicating that the signal strength output from the Mac Mini is out of specification and too low to be interpreted by some monitor. Expensive monitors can apparently adjust to the lower signal output.
But, if I was interested in expensive, I'd have bought either the iMac or a more expensive PC and not the Mac Mini.
So, we have been recommended to take both monitor and Mac Mini to an Apple store to have it checked out. I'll keep everyone posted when we actually accomplish this pain in the butt. I suspect though, that there simply isn't a fix for this problem.
So, rather fortunately, we had his 15" monitor available and we connected it to that monitor and it works perfectly. There are a number of blogs and articles out there on this subject, which seems to indicate that there is no solution. A German Company in some articles is referenced as indicating that the signal strength output from the Mac Mini is out of specification and too low to be interpreted by some monitor. Expensive monitors can apparently adjust to the lower signal output.
But, if I was interested in expensive, I'd have bought either the iMac or a more expensive PC and not the Mac Mini.
So, we have been recommended to take both monitor and Mac Mini to an Apple store to have it checked out. I'll keep everyone posted when we actually accomplish this pain in the butt. I suspect though, that there simply isn't a fix for this problem.
Viginia Tech Shooting
I feel sorrow as a parent for all those killed at Virginia Tech. Each and every one of them took years to be made in to college students, people with futures and people that in this country we need to live long fruitful lives. All those hopes are embedded in these students by their parents and the hopes for better futures.
Today, for 32 people most who were college students there will be no future. The absence of a future is a void the exact opposite of having a better future.
The head of the English department at Virginia Tech has revealed that some of Cho Seung-Hui's writings were sufficiently disturbing that they sent him out for counseling. Then in the same paragraph in this article she indicates that she won't tell anyone his grades or reveal the paper that referred him to counseling out of respect for privacy laws.
I have the highest respect for privacy laws, but she already broke those privacy laws by revealing anything about his education that was not already public knowledge. At this point in time to be consistent she needs to reveal this paper that she has now made everyone slavering over knowing the contents public.
I think, that in certain cases privacy laws need to be amended. It should be written that if a person commits a crime that all privacy concerns are no longer in scope. If you run around and kill a bunch of people you lose your right to privacy. Also, in this case it is uncertain whose privacy she is protecting as the individual in question is quite dead. If you are dead, you don't own anything, you can't do anything, you can't feel embarrassed about anything and guess what you don't have a right to privacy anymore since there isn't a 'you' anymore.
Today, for 32 people most who were college students there will be no future. The absence of a future is a void the exact opposite of having a better future.
The head of the English department at Virginia Tech has revealed that some of Cho Seung-Hui's writings were sufficiently disturbing that they sent him out for counseling. Then in the same paragraph in this article she indicates that she won't tell anyone his grades or reveal the paper that referred him to counseling out of respect for privacy laws.
I have the highest respect for privacy laws, but she already broke those privacy laws by revealing anything about his education that was not already public knowledge. At this point in time to be consistent she needs to reveal this paper that she has now made everyone slavering over knowing the contents public.
I think, that in certain cases privacy laws need to be amended. It should be written that if a person commits a crime that all privacy concerns are no longer in scope. If you run around and kill a bunch of people you lose your right to privacy. Also, in this case it is uncertain whose privacy she is protecting as the individual in question is quite dead. If you are dead, you don't own anything, you can't do anything, you can't feel embarrassed about anything and guess what you don't have a right to privacy anymore since there isn't a 'you' anymore.
Monday, April 09, 2007
Credit Card Woes II
You know, sometimes I wonder about credit card companies and how they can survive. They practice such unethical business processes that it is a wonder they aren't sued out of existence.
For example, my wife and I had a Chase MasterCard through Amazon. It wasn't originally Chase, as we've had issue with Chase before, but Amazon changed who they were working with so now it is a Chase MasterCard.
We made a transfer from Chase to another credit card with a better rate for 5K. Three months later, Chase tells us that the payment never posted. In the meantime, unfortunately, we had to use the card so when they replaced the 3K on to the card, we went over the credit limit. The funny thing about it is that neither the issuing bank (my wife's credit union) nor Chase notified us that anything was wrong until things were fundamentally screwed up.
So, retroactively, they put us overlimit for 3 months, charged us a bunch of penalties and temporarily closed our account. They indicated if we made the account whole again they would open the account up again.
So, instead of paying the card to make it whole, we paid them a few thousand, and then moved the rest of the balance to other cards and called and said you know what, we don't want to deal with you.
You know why we'll never go back to Chase? Because the bitch on the phone started talking down to me when I was trying to straighten things out. "Didn't you notice 5K of your debt disappeared?" WTF lady, am I supposed to keep after credit card companies to make sure they do their business with money straight? Exactly which one of us is in the business of money? I know what I'm in the business of right now, taking care of 1 then 3 year old and one 4 month old. If you can't catch a problem with a payment for 3 months, I fail to see how I should be penalized at all. If I bounce a regular check, guess what, I know about it instantly. Exactly, why couldn't that happen with a balance transfer check.
End result is that they put 30 to 60 days late on my credit report and I paid their account off and I won't be using Chase ever again.
And you know, its funny, I really like Amazon as a company and I was more than happy to move over to an Amazon Mastercard for purchases with them. Whatever side business they did for having their name on the card, gone. I'll still use Amazon for a lot of purchases, but screw trying to do business with any of their financial products.
For example, my wife and I had a Chase MasterCard through Amazon. It wasn't originally Chase, as we've had issue with Chase before, but Amazon changed who they were working with so now it is a Chase MasterCard.
We made a transfer from Chase to another credit card with a better rate for 5K. Three months later, Chase tells us that the payment never posted. In the meantime, unfortunately, we had to use the card so when they replaced the 3K on to the card, we went over the credit limit. The funny thing about it is that neither the issuing bank (my wife's credit union) nor Chase notified us that anything was wrong until things were fundamentally screwed up.
So, retroactively, they put us overlimit for 3 months, charged us a bunch of penalties and temporarily closed our account. They indicated if we made the account whole again they would open the account up again.
So, instead of paying the card to make it whole, we paid them a few thousand, and then moved the rest of the balance to other cards and called and said you know what, we don't want to deal with you.
You know why we'll never go back to Chase? Because the bitch on the phone started talking down to me when I was trying to straighten things out. "Didn't you notice 5K of your debt disappeared?" WTF lady, am I supposed to keep after credit card companies to make sure they do their business with money straight? Exactly which one of us is in the business of money? I know what I'm in the business of right now, taking care of 1 then 3 year old and one 4 month old. If you can't catch a problem with a payment for 3 months, I fail to see how I should be penalized at all. If I bounce a regular check, guess what, I know about it instantly. Exactly, why couldn't that happen with a balance transfer check.
End result is that they put 30 to 60 days late on my credit report and I paid their account off and I won't be using Chase ever again.
And you know, its funny, I really like Amazon as a company and I was more than happy to move over to an Amazon Mastercard for purchases with them. Whatever side business they did for having their name on the card, gone. I'll still use Amazon for a lot of purchases, but screw trying to do business with any of their financial products.
Credit Card Woes
You know, over time you get used to how credit cards work and what happens when you drop the ball or when someone drops the ball for you.
Well, Exxon/Mobile changed who their credit card company is or something and they changed how things behave. Over the years I have been late with the occasional payment. Or missed it completely. Then I'd get the next bill, say 'oh, crap, I missed a payment. ' Send the payment with enough for both payments and all would be well.
But it seems the standards have changed. We get registered mail at my house and we get one every year. Well, out of the 5 years we have been at this house we have never had it delivered by our mail man. In fact, sometimes we'd get 3rd notice with our mail, and never have gotten 1st or second notice or anything with a threat to send the registered mail back.
This year, we got registered mail, from an old employer of mine that stopped paying us just before they passed from existence. It was a check and it was sent mid-December. We got final notice almost mid-January and had to complain for the post office to hold it so we could pick it up.
Then our annual registered mail came in or rather didn't and we complained.
That month, our Exxon bill didn't come and we missed a payment. I suspect it was a gentle hint from our mail man not to fuck with him. (sorry about the expletive, but sometimes it is necessary.)
So, we missed a payment. We get a bill with a past due from Exxon. We pay it. A few days later we get a notice that we're late and that they will be withdrawing our credit. What?
So, I pay that (not realizing my wife already paid it a few days earlier). Then some time passes and we get another notice that we are late. WTF?
You know, something fishy is going on here. What happened to the courtesy of waiting until the end of the payment of the next month to kill me with stuff like this? Is there no room for error?
So, now you should understand, I've been a Exxon Card owner and purchasing only Exxon gas for the past 10 years or more. Can you imagine the thousands of dollars I have spent with them? Picture a minimum of $200 a month and you'll get a glimmer of an idea.
And now they treat me like trash. What next, are they going to send me to collections?
So, I call them immediately after I get this second letter and they tell me, oh yeah, you are flush, you've got $140 credit on the card (both payments hit, but this amount of credit should be low, maybe purchases have already been applied against it).
Top all of this off with the fact that my sister-in-law is having problems with the credit portion of Exxon as well. And Exxon is in jeopardy of losing not $200 a month, but $400 to $600 a month. Maybe it isn't much in the big picture, but I wonder how many people who use Exxon Credit are also having issues with these folks.
Way to chase the customers off that are beating your door down. Hey, there are still other gas stations, and while my wife's grandfather and great-grandfather worked at Exxon, I don't feel any particular loyalty to them. Not when they treat me like dirt.
Well, Exxon/Mobile changed who their credit card company is or something and they changed how things behave. Over the years I have been late with the occasional payment. Or missed it completely. Then I'd get the next bill, say 'oh, crap, I missed a payment. ' Send the payment with enough for both payments and all would be well.
But it seems the standards have changed. We get registered mail at my house and we get one every year. Well, out of the 5 years we have been at this house we have never had it delivered by our mail man. In fact, sometimes we'd get 3rd notice with our mail, and never have gotten 1st or second notice or anything with a threat to send the registered mail back.
This year, we got registered mail, from an old employer of mine that stopped paying us just before they passed from existence. It was a check and it was sent mid-December. We got final notice almost mid-January and had to complain for the post office to hold it so we could pick it up.
Then our annual registered mail came in or rather didn't and we complained.
That month, our Exxon bill didn't come and we missed a payment. I suspect it was a gentle hint from our mail man not to fuck with him. (sorry about the expletive, but sometimes it is necessary.)
So, we missed a payment. We get a bill with a past due from Exxon. We pay it. A few days later we get a notice that we're late and that they will be withdrawing our credit. What?
So, I pay that (not realizing my wife already paid it a few days earlier). Then some time passes and we get another notice that we are late. WTF?
You know, something fishy is going on here. What happened to the courtesy of waiting until the end of the payment of the next month to kill me with stuff like this? Is there no room for error?
So, now you should understand, I've been a Exxon Card owner and purchasing only Exxon gas for the past 10 years or more. Can you imagine the thousands of dollars I have spent with them? Picture a minimum of $200 a month and you'll get a glimmer of an idea.
And now they treat me like trash. What next, are they going to send me to collections?
So, I call them immediately after I get this second letter and they tell me, oh yeah, you are flush, you've got $140 credit on the card (both payments hit, but this amount of credit should be low, maybe purchases have already been applied against it).
Top all of this off with the fact that my sister-in-law is having problems with the credit portion of Exxon as well. And Exxon is in jeopardy of losing not $200 a month, but $400 to $600 a month. Maybe it isn't much in the big picture, but I wonder how many people who use Exxon Credit are also having issues with these folks.
Way to chase the customers off that are beating your door down. Hey, there are still other gas stations, and while my wife's grandfather and great-grandfather worked at Exxon, I don't feel any particular loyalty to them. Not when they treat me like dirt.
A New Mac for the Extended Family
My nuclear family has 1 Mac - a Macbook 13". My wife enjoys everything about it - except that there is limited MMORPG support on the platform.
So, my father-in-laws is suffering from chronic slow computer disease. We ordered a Mac for him, considering that he doesn't have MMORPG needs at all and he needs his computer for e-mail, internet, spreadsheet and ancestry/family tree/ genome project needs and that is it - it is a logical choice for him.
We ordered a Mac Mini, as that certainly far outstrips his needs - at 1.66 Ghz and Intel Core Duo it is a reasonably nice machine, even if it is a bit slower than the Mac book we purchased for my wife while she was pregnant.
It bothers me, though. What bothers me, you ask?
Well, there is an Apple store in Menlo Park Mall here in NJ. We went there in the hopes of purchasing the machine and taking it home and transferring my father-in-laws files. His old e-machines computer was working at that time.
But, I would never purchase any machine at this time with only 512MB or RAM. And that is exactly what the Mac Mini comes with (even if you go up and buy the faster machine!).
And there is the hitch in my plot. If you buy 1GB of memory online they charge like $79. If you want the 1 GB in the store, they are going to charge you $150.
No, friggin way.
The excuse they gave at the store was that RAM costs more for them and that they actually do something something something and you end up with an extra chip.
Well, the extra chip is a waste and RAM costs aside, you should be able to offer in a standardized store the same thing you offer on a standardized web page. It isn't like CompUSA and they have a million things and charge on a FIFO basis for inventory.
In the Mac store they could charge it back to the web site and send the unused memory back to Apple. Or something similar that involved not charging the customer more for the option of necessary memory and pushing the customer to purchase through the web site for anything other than the default configuration.
So, we had to wait for the computer and just as luck would have it my father-in-laws e-machine died (horribly) and now things will be much harder to transfer.
It isn't like I don't have a drive enclosure for his old hard drive. It just makes things more difficult.
So, my father-in-laws is suffering from chronic slow computer disease. We ordered a Mac for him, considering that he doesn't have MMORPG needs at all and he needs his computer for e-mail, internet, spreadsheet and ancestry/family tree/ genome project needs and that is it - it is a logical choice for him.
We ordered a Mac Mini, as that certainly far outstrips his needs - at 1.66 Ghz and Intel Core Duo it is a reasonably nice machine, even if it is a bit slower than the Mac book we purchased for my wife while she was pregnant.
It bothers me, though. What bothers me, you ask?
Well, there is an Apple store in Menlo Park Mall here in NJ. We went there in the hopes of purchasing the machine and taking it home and transferring my father-in-laws files. His old e-machines computer was working at that time.
But, I would never purchase any machine at this time with only 512MB or RAM. And that is exactly what the Mac Mini comes with (even if you go up and buy the faster machine!).
And there is the hitch in my plot. If you buy 1GB of memory online they charge like $79. If you want the 1 GB in the store, they are going to charge you $150.
No, friggin way.
The excuse they gave at the store was that RAM costs more for them and that they actually do something something something and you end up with an extra chip.
Well, the extra chip is a waste and RAM costs aside, you should be able to offer in a standardized store the same thing you offer on a standardized web page. It isn't like CompUSA and they have a million things and charge on a FIFO basis for inventory.
In the Mac store they could charge it back to the web site and send the unused memory back to Apple. Or something similar that involved not charging the customer more for the option of necessary memory and pushing the customer to purchase through the web site for anything other than the default configuration.
So, we had to wait for the computer and just as luck would have it my father-in-laws e-machine died (horribly) and now things will be much harder to transfer.
It isn't like I don't have a drive enclosure for his old hard drive. It just makes things more difficult.
Tuesday, March 13, 2007
General Speaks and Claims 'Personal Views'
I was a member of the military for 10 years including 2 years inactive duty.
CNN Article
I know exactly what it means to make a public statement in uniform. This is something that is taught when you start out in the military in Basic military training.
1) When you are in uniform you are not to make any public statements unless specifically authorized to do so.
2) Any public statemens made while in uniform are to be official communications of the military.
3) You do not have freedom of speech while you are performing your military duty in a public forum.
So General Pace as a member of the Joint Chiefs of Staff would certainly have authorization to make public statements at any time even as high up as he is in the military he is still restricted by the second two 'rules'.
He should have the self-control to not make public statements while in uniform or performing his duty that might be considered military policy when in fact they are not.
He cannot claim that any statements made while serving and making statements publically are his personal views or by implication protecting his 'first amendment' rights to free speech, when in fact free speech does not exist for a military person serving and making public statements.
I'm sure he can appreciate that he wouldn't want his soldiers under him to discover free speech and first amendment protections any time they have a personal opinion about his orders. Nor can he make first amendment statements while in uniform serving his duty and making public statements.
Calls for him to apologize are foolish. You should never apologize for a statement that is a true representation for who you are and he shouldn't apologize for his statement. General Pace; however, should apologize to the military and himself for losing his battle of self-control and making personal statements as a public representative of the military. He knows he did something wrong (even if it isn't what people think he did wrong) and should make amends.
He has revealed his true beliefs that a fairly large percentage of his comrades in arms are people that he dispises and feels are immoral.
If, as one of the major leaders of the military, he believes as he does that gay activities are immoral and criminal then he should be true to himself. He should pursue gay activities just as much as he would pursue any other known criminals in the military. After all, what kind of moral integrity does he have if he'll allow the known immoral and criminal to fight for his country? He has revealed himself as a bigot and hypocrite.
A bigot - One who is strongly partial to one's own group, religion, race, or politics and is intolerant of those who differ - so much so that he believes these people who perform sexual practices that are unlike his own are criminal.
He is a hypocrite - a person who pretends to have virtues, moral or religious beliefs, principles, etc., that he or she does not actually possess, esp. a person whose actions belie stated beliefs - in that he calls the actions of gay people crimes but does nothing to pursue them.
Those that are strong in to military virtues, regardless of their moral beliefs, should no longer want to be lead by a General who lack so much self-control.
CNN Article
I know exactly what it means to make a public statement in uniform. This is something that is taught when you start out in the military in Basic military training.
1) When you are in uniform you are not to make any public statements unless specifically authorized to do so.
2) Any public statemens made while in uniform are to be official communications of the military.
3) You do not have freedom of speech while you are performing your military duty in a public forum.
So General Pace as a member of the Joint Chiefs of Staff would certainly have authorization to make public statements at any time even as high up as he is in the military he is still restricted by the second two 'rules'.
He should have the self-control to not make public statements while in uniform or performing his duty that might be considered military policy when in fact they are not.
He cannot claim that any statements made while serving and making statements publically are his personal views or by implication protecting his 'first amendment' rights to free speech, when in fact free speech does not exist for a military person serving and making public statements.
I'm sure he can appreciate that he wouldn't want his soldiers under him to discover free speech and first amendment protections any time they have a personal opinion about his orders. Nor can he make first amendment statements while in uniform serving his duty and making public statements.
Calls for him to apologize are foolish. You should never apologize for a statement that is a true representation for who you are and he shouldn't apologize for his statement. General Pace; however, should apologize to the military and himself for losing his battle of self-control and making personal statements as a public representative of the military. He knows he did something wrong (even if it isn't what people think he did wrong) and should make amends.
He has revealed his true beliefs that a fairly large percentage of his comrades in arms are people that he dispises and feels are immoral.
If, as one of the major leaders of the military, he believes as he does that gay activities are immoral and criminal then he should be true to himself. He should pursue gay activities just as much as he would pursue any other known criminals in the military. After all, what kind of moral integrity does he have if he'll allow the known immoral and criminal to fight for his country? He has revealed himself as a bigot and hypocrite.
A bigot - One who is strongly partial to one's own group, religion, race, or politics and is intolerant of those who differ - so much so that he believes these people who perform sexual practices that are unlike his own are criminal.
He is a hypocrite - a person who pretends to have virtues, moral or religious beliefs, principles, etc., that he or she does not actually possess, esp. a person whose actions belie stated beliefs - in that he calls the actions of gay people crimes but does nothing to pursue them.
Those that are strong in to military virtues, regardless of their moral beliefs, should no longer want to be lead by a General who lack so much self-control.
Tuesday, March 06, 2007
Google News Searches
If you like to read then here are my four favorite searches on google news:
1) Anti-Science
2) Science
3) Technology
4) Atheism
Almost always there is something interesting that pops up in these searches. In the future I'll be running these searchs and writing some about the more interesting articles out there.
1) Anti-Science
2) Science
3) Technology
4) Atheism
Almost always there is something interesting that pops up in these searches. In the future I'll be running these searchs and writing some about the more interesting articles out there.
Death Segment 2
This is just going to be a brief post. I know often people will remark that a specific dead person that was close to them helped them through this or that or guided them through something.
I know one thing for sure dead people don't do anything at all. My mother-in-law used to watch my first son anytime we needed her. No spirit can do that if spirits exist.
If spirits cannot be responsible for something simple like watching my 3 year old, how can they be responsible for anything else?
And so... days before my mother-in-laws death my wife became pregnant. My mother-in-law will never know her second grandchild. And who knows, perhaps there will be a third in the future? I can't say. Right now it seems hard enough to deal with two kids and it seems unlikely that any of her siblings will have any children.
I know there are a lot of people that claim that dead people do things. But you don't see dead people doing anything important. You don't see these people that believe in dead people going around doing things depending on these spirits or whatever to go to work for them today because they are sick?
You can believe in spirits or whatever all you want. In the end, what you do is on a daily basis is no different than what a person does that doesn't believe in spirits. The belief in spirits does only one thing for you - gives you a nice fuzzy feeling that the ones you loved in life that have died are somewhere around doing useful things.
I know one thing for sure dead people don't do anything at all. My mother-in-law used to watch my first son anytime we needed her. No spirit can do that if spirits exist.
If spirits cannot be responsible for something simple like watching my 3 year old, how can they be responsible for anything else?
And so... days before my mother-in-laws death my wife became pregnant. My mother-in-law will never know her second grandchild. And who knows, perhaps there will be a third in the future? I can't say. Right now it seems hard enough to deal with two kids and it seems unlikely that any of her siblings will have any children.
I know there are a lot of people that claim that dead people do things. But you don't see dead people doing anything important. You don't see these people that believe in dead people going around doing things depending on these spirits or whatever to go to work for them today because they are sick?
You can believe in spirits or whatever all you want. In the end, what you do is on a daily basis is no different than what a person does that doesn't believe in spirits. The belief in spirits does only one thing for you - gives you a nice fuzzy feeling that the ones you loved in life that have died are somewhere around doing useful things.
Ann Coulter Calls John Edwards a Faggot
Ann Coulter is a very intelligent woman. I think that point needs to be brought out immediately.
So, when she was accused of using the term faggot (which she did) and she claims it was just a school yard insult and not derogatory of John Edwards sexual orientation and to gays in the United States of America, we know she is lying. An intelligent person in front of a conservative convention that is a paid speaker knows exactly what she is saying.
I don't have a problem with her calling John Edwards a faggot in a personal setting. I don't even care if she says it in a public setting, either. She is a publicity hound and will say or do anything that keeps the coin of her speeches valuable.
No, that isn't the problem.
If you watch the clip you'll hear something very important happen and it has nothing to do with Ann Coulter. Listen to the audience of this major political action committee. A PAC that represents around 50% of the nation.
There is an ooooooing sound from the audience. It is like a fight starting up in the cafeteria in elementary school! And then there is a brief Ah!!! As if to say, I can't believe she said that and its exactly what I'd say if I was up there, followed by loud applause.
Then she closes her speech only seconds later - to thunderous applause.
There was a conservative blog out there that was pissed off at Ann Coulter for associating bigotry and anti-gay sentiment with the conservative movement. I don't know who this person is, but they have a sadly misunderstood idea of their own conservative movement. Listen to the audience. That was not the sound of an audience upset by the speaker saying something they did not want to hear. This was an audience that agreed wholeheartedly with what she said, if not exactly how she said it.
Watch the video again and this time concentrate on her facial movements. She isn't sure at first how well the remark was taken, then the audience takes off with it. She smiles, tilts her head coyly and understands that she has hit her mark. The audience was cheering, there were sure to be press discussion about her which would driving up the value of her speaking engagements (and the demand for those engagements).
She is very proud of what she has done and in her remarks later she is not recalcitrant about saying it - instead she lies and states it is just a school-age insult.
She says that you have to go in to rehab if you use the term 'faggot'. Why would you have to go to an rehab for saying something that is just a school-age insult? No, you might need to go to rehab (at least rehab from the public) if you said the word Nigger. If she was taunting at Political Correctness, it seems that her comment itself is proof that it isn't true - that PC would send you to rehab for saying the word 'faggot'. In her own speech just before she says faggot she determines its meaning. It is clear. She means it as a double-insult - one against John Edwards (who among Democratic presidential hopefuls is the most forgettable) and one against the gay community.
So, Ann Coulter makes a statement, some people get upset, some people are very happy. It should be clear that Ann Coulter has done our society a great service. She has shown that one of the largest PACs and motivators behind republicans and conservatives - are hateful and bigoted. That making such statements does not bring global denouncement by the 'good' people in attendence is a treatise to the fact that they are not the good people they want people to think they are.
So, when she was accused of using the term faggot (which she did) and she claims it was just a school yard insult and not derogatory of John Edwards sexual orientation and to gays in the United States of America, we know she is lying. An intelligent person in front of a conservative convention that is a paid speaker knows exactly what she is saying.
I don't have a problem with her calling John Edwards a faggot in a personal setting. I don't even care if she says it in a public setting, either. She is a publicity hound and will say or do anything that keeps the coin of her speeches valuable.
No, that isn't the problem.
If you watch the clip you'll hear something very important happen and it has nothing to do with Ann Coulter. Listen to the audience of this major political action committee. A PAC that represents around 50% of the nation.
There is an ooooooing sound from the audience. It is like a fight starting up in the cafeteria in elementary school! And then there is a brief Ah!!! As if to say, I can't believe she said that and its exactly what I'd say if I was up there, followed by loud applause.
Then she closes her speech only seconds later - to thunderous applause.
There was a conservative blog out there that was pissed off at Ann Coulter for associating bigotry and anti-gay sentiment with the conservative movement. I don't know who this person is, but they have a sadly misunderstood idea of their own conservative movement. Listen to the audience. That was not the sound of an audience upset by the speaker saying something they did not want to hear. This was an audience that agreed wholeheartedly with what she said, if not exactly how she said it.
Watch the video again and this time concentrate on her facial movements. She isn't sure at first how well the remark was taken, then the audience takes off with it. She smiles, tilts her head coyly and understands that she has hit her mark. The audience was cheering, there were sure to be press discussion about her which would driving up the value of her speaking engagements (and the demand for those engagements).
She is very proud of what she has done and in her remarks later she is not recalcitrant about saying it - instead she lies and states it is just a school-age insult.
She says that you have to go in to rehab if you use the term 'faggot'. Why would you have to go to an rehab for saying something that is just a school-age insult? No, you might need to go to rehab (at least rehab from the public) if you said the word Nigger. If she was taunting at Political Correctness, it seems that her comment itself is proof that it isn't true - that PC would send you to rehab for saying the word 'faggot'. In her own speech just before she says faggot she determines its meaning. It is clear. She means it as a double-insult - one against John Edwards (who among Democratic presidential hopefuls is the most forgettable) and one against the gay community.
So, Ann Coulter makes a statement, some people get upset, some people are very happy. It should be clear that Ann Coulter has done our society a great service. She has shown that one of the largest PACs and motivators behind republicans and conservatives - are hateful and bigoted. That making such statements does not bring global denouncement by the 'good' people in attendence is a treatise to the fact that they are not the good people they want people to think they are.
Friday, March 02, 2007
The Conspiracy to dismantle NASA
It seems like years ago that Bush made a statement that we should return to the moon and then go onward to Mars with manned missions.
He did this before the 2004 elections. I thought it was obvious that he wanted to get the votes of the science oriented. NASA is a constant thorn in the side of politicians.
I am a member of an amateur astronomy group - and I said it shortly after his statement - and I'll say it again - it was not only a ploy to get votes but it is a magnificent plan to destroy and dismantle NASA.
NASA then and NASA now does not appear to have the capability to go to the Moon and even less Mars. It was clear that the funds would never be made available for an surge of capabilities necessary to make it to the Moon and Mars again.
Recent articles have stated that there will be a delay in our return to space after the Space shuttle is retired - due to a flat budget for NASA from 2007 to 2008 - which actually amounts to a decrease in funds when you account for inflation.
NASA - will be absorbed by the military in the near future. All it will take now is the public acknowledging NASA as a failure - and it will fail to go to the Moon and Mars, almost certainly... And NASA's budget, capabilities and manpower will all be military.
NASA has already reduced the science it will do in order to make it to the Moon and Mars, soon, it will not be able to do either (and it will be obvious long before the dates come that they planned to get to the Moon and Mars) and NASA will implode like a Black Hole - never to be seen again.
He did this before the 2004 elections. I thought it was obvious that he wanted to get the votes of the science oriented. NASA is a constant thorn in the side of politicians.
I am a member of an amateur astronomy group - and I said it shortly after his statement - and I'll say it again - it was not only a ploy to get votes but it is a magnificent plan to destroy and dismantle NASA.
NASA then and NASA now does not appear to have the capability to go to the Moon and even less Mars. It was clear that the funds would never be made available for an surge of capabilities necessary to make it to the Moon and Mars again.
Recent articles have stated that there will be a delay in our return to space after the Space shuttle is retired - due to a flat budget for NASA from 2007 to 2008 - which actually amounts to a decrease in funds when you account for inflation.
NASA - will be absorbed by the military in the near future. All it will take now is the public acknowledging NASA as a failure - and it will fail to go to the Moon and Mars, almost certainly... And NASA's budget, capabilities and manpower will all be military.
NASA has already reduced the science it will do in order to make it to the Moon and Mars, soon, it will not be able to do either (and it will be obvious long before the dates come that they planned to get to the Moon and Mars) and NASA will implode like a Black Hole - never to be seen again.
Dvorak's opinion on CES
In John C. Dvorak's recent articel "Dear CES: Kick Out the PCs" he appeals that the computer technology should be removed from the CES show - to make a new Computer/technology oriented show and have more room for the Consume electronics that are supposed to be featured at CES.
Well, respectfully, I disagree with my favorite computer topic writer.
I think that he is on the right track though. I think that in a monstrous sized convention as the CES, you need clear segmentation of the different businesses. Even to the point that companies such as Sony should have separate stands in different areas - for TV, Computer, etc segments.
Then, you still have the SAP, IBM, Oracle stands that are there - and not for the typical Electronics Consumer - and you still attract the sheer number of people that CES is known.
Hell, I'd even be up for combining Tech Ed for Microsoft and Tech Ed for SAP in to CES... Then it would be great to bring the family.
Well, respectfully, I disagree with my favorite computer topic writer.
I think that he is on the right track though. I think that in a monstrous sized convention as the CES, you need clear segmentation of the different businesses. Even to the point that companies such as Sony should have separate stands in different areas - for TV, Computer, etc segments.
Then, you still have the SAP, IBM, Oracle stands that are there - and not for the typical Electronics Consumer - and you still attract the sheer number of people that CES is known.
Hell, I'd even be up for combining Tech Ed for Microsoft and Tech Ed for SAP in to CES... Then it would be great to bring the family.
Guacamole
I love guacamole. But it is just painful to buy avocados and wait until they are ripe and make it. But I don't have to deal with that anymore.
Sam's club sells frozen avocados with premixed guacamole mix that you thaw, mix up and eat whenever you want it.
Ahhhh, this is happiness. Too bad everything I really like at Sam's club eventually disappears. So, I went and bought some more.
Sam's club sells frozen avocados with premixed guacamole mix that you thaw, mix up and eat whenever you want it.
Ahhhh, this is happiness. Too bad everything I really like at Sam's club eventually disappears. So, I went and bought some more.
FutureCar series on Discovery Channel
I like this series a lot, but it seems to me that they lack the negative side of the technologies they talk about.
I don't know how major it is, but I remember reading about the Tweel some time ago.
Noise Problems
As indicated in the above Wikipedia article need to be solved to a better than current tires noise level - before these tires could be adopted by regular people. At first these tires are going to be more expensive than regular tires and if they are more expensive people won't buy them unless they outperform their current tires in almost every way.
But I still love the show. I can't wait for the future to arrive. Personally, though, I hope for arcologies without roads (and no cars) more than I hope for really cool cars. Like any American, though, I love cars.
I don't know how major it is, but I remember reading about the Tweel some time ago.
Noise Problems
As indicated in the above Wikipedia article need to be solved to a better than current tires noise level - before these tires could be adopted by regular people. At first these tires are going to be more expensive than regular tires and if they are more expensive people won't buy them unless they outperform their current tires in almost every way.
But I still love the show. I can't wait for the future to arrive. Personally, though, I hope for arcologies without roads (and no cars) more than I hope for really cool cars. Like any American, though, I love cars.
Monday, February 26, 2007
A Great Discussion Web Site for Religious topics
If you are a person that is interested in discussions with people of varying levels of belief and non-belief the best site in the world to hold discussions is iidb.org -> The Internet Infidels Discussion Board.
I'm on this site frequently as Old Ygg. Sometimes I'll pose rediculous questions, sometimes I'll ask serious questions and on this site where there are so many questions it is often hard to tell the difference.
Most of the people there are curteous, but not all. Expect that you should be able to back up any statements you make on this discussion board.
There is also another good reason for people to go to this site - if they are atheists, agnostics, secular humanists or any other variety of philosophical thinker - it is a place where you can speak your mind and be the free thinker you are - and be in the company of friends.
I'm on this site frequently as Old Ygg. Sometimes I'll pose rediculous questions, sometimes I'll ask serious questions and on this site where there are so many questions it is often hard to tell the difference.
Most of the people there are curteous, but not all. Expect that you should be able to back up any statements you make on this discussion board.
There is also another good reason for people to go to this site - if they are atheists, agnostics, secular humanists or any other variety of philosophical thinker - it is a place where you can speak your mind and be the free thinker you are - and be in the company of friends.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)