Happy Holidays!

The Pictures and what it took to take them:

Music

Music is an extremely important value in my life. I like a broad range of musical styles and periods. It's been thisway since I was 14 years old. My first cassettes were Brahsm, Mozart, and Motley Crue. I'm not sure why I'm so passionately interested in music as against the other fine arts, which I appreciate, but can live without. It's such an important value that I couldn't possibly consider a romance with someone that didn't love music as well.

As much as I love music, there is very little of it that I love--does that make sense? What I mean is that I am very judicious with my musical choices, but I spend a great deal of time listening to music I love, and seeking out new music to love. A rare gift is when someone introduces me to an artist that I have not previously heard and I end up liking. This morning a work buddy sent me a link to a performance of a concerto for guitar that is simply beautiful. The composer is Joaquin Rodrigo, and the guitar is played by Narciso Yepes.

In addition, I've recently become very interested in a speed-metal band called Dragon Force. They're probably the fastest, heaviest band I've ever heard--yet they still manage to remain melodic. They're songs have an epic quality reminiscent of Iron Maiden and Helloween--only more so. I've bought all three of their albums and have been listening to them pretty much non-stop for the last few weeks. Good stuff!

When Religion is Funny

Religion is so absurd. How people can believe in a magic man in the sky is beyond me. That's why I really enjoyed these two gems today. The first is a video of a man that gets so fed up with people knocking on his door proselytizing to him that he flys to Utah and starts knocking on doors proselytizing peope about atheism. Simply classic. The second is a list of Bible verses that you don't hear the fundamentalists trot out very often, as they don't exactly paint a benevolent (or even sensical) picture of their magic man in the sky.

Enjoy!

Environmentalist Intimidation

A buddy of mine sent me a link to this article detailing intimidation tactics by two US Senators on ExxonMobil to push an environmentalist agenda. Thought you'd be interested.

It never ends ...

... Yet another expose on the distortions of the eco-terrorists. This one takes on the Hockey Stick graph used by the U.N. to "prove" Global Warming.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2006/11/05/nosplit/nwarm05.xml

Hat Tip: Trey Givens

Principles and Assertions

Without the guide of principles, the only alternative is a grab-bag of arbitrary assertions delivered on a case by case basis. The FCC is a case in point. Observe the mental contortions that the FCC has to go through in order to justify its unjustifiable censorship policies. Since the FCC (and the Supreme Court) has abandoned the First Amendment in favor of "community standards," the FCC is left with no objective standard on which to base its decisions.

I'm sure that the neo-cons would be happy to offer a justification though...

Trans-Siberian Orchestra

I saw TSO last night in Greenville. They rocked! If you're not familiar, they are a rock-oriented band/orchestra that plays classical and Christmas music, but themed with electric guitars and whatnot. The musicians are master players--the music is hard, heavy, and happy--a combination not usually seen. The tone of the performance was one of joy. Qua Christmas-oriented, it contained a lot of religious/altruist imagery. However, I didn't think that those elements detracted from the overall joyous sense of life projected by the performance.

Learning

The Creating Passionate Users blog has an interesting post about how math, science, engineering are taught vs. what us techies really need.

To which I will add that the focus on "language" is indicative of a concrete-bound mentality.

Happy Halloween!

Here's a great costume for your enjoyment:
http://www.collegehumor.com/video:1719034/

Cheers!

Media Roundup

I have to second Diana Sieh's recommendation of Veronica Mars: My girfriend and I are 4 episodes into the first season and are already enthralled. The DVD box describes the show as "part Buffy, part Nancy Drew"-- an assessment with which I have to concur. If you have ever watched and enjoyed Buffy the Vampire Slayer or Firefly, I highly suggest this series to you.

In music I've been listening to Liz Phair's latest album, Somebody's Miracle. It lacks some of the in-your-face sexuality that garners her so much attention. I have difficulty with the explicit meaning of some of the songs, even as I like their "sense of life." "Everything to Me," "Closer to You," and "Everything (Between Us)" are all quite lovely, and the album holds together as a catalog of intimate, folksy songs. Also, it has that great pic in the liner notes.

I've been reading the Victor Hugo novel "Toilers of the Sea." I'm about 150 pages into it right now, and the story is just starting to move forward. What I've read has been interesting, and in some places quite beautiful. I'm starting to see where bits of the groundwork that Hugo has put into place are beginning to become relevant to the plot (even though I'm not totally sure what the plot is yet).

Looks like November is going to be a busy month for concerts. I've got the Trans-Siberian Orchestra, Imogen Heap, and Raq lined up. Should be fun!

TTFN!

Heroes

Heroes is a new show from NBC that has great promise. The simplest way to describe it is to say that it is like X-Men, but before anybody knows anything about mutants. The show takes itself seriously, has just the right amount of humor, and is dramatic. I saw the first episode (which as I write this is available to watch in streaming video on www.nbc.com ) last night, and enjoyed it immensely. I recommend it to anyone with the slightest infection of nerdity.

An Israeli Perspective

Roy Osherove is sort of famous in the .Net developer community. He is the creator of www.regexlib.com. He doesn't often blog politics, but politics has recently had an impact on his career. In this post, he discusses the impact as well as answers some intellectually sloppy accusations that have been levied against Israel. It's not a perfect response (his allusion to moral grayness for example), but it's still very good.

Update:
I was wrong--He didn't create www.regexlib.com. Woops!

I was wrong...

... in my first thoughts about the Spinach/E.Coli problem. My first thought when I first heard about it was "It's probably the organic stuff."

Indeed, I was supported in that theory by the picture in this article. The company is denying that its organic products are affected, although the FDA isn't ruling anything out.

So, at this point, nothing is really known. I'll be very interested in the final conclusions if anyone comes across them before I do.

Yay

Sometimes they get it right. Wikipedia at least is refusing to kowtow to Chinese censorship efforts.
Article here.

Month-iversary

Tomorrow marks 2 months since I began dating Emily. She contacted me awhile back after reading a lot of my blog; we started talking; one thing led to another; and here we are.
This relationship is already different and better than any of my previous ones. We have a great number of common interests to start with. I can say "Do you wanna' play Battlefield 2?" and the answer I get is usually "Yes!" She loves to read, watch great television shows, play games (video, roleplaying, and board). She has a marvelous sense of humor. She's smart as a lemon drops, and she adores my dogs. The fact that she likes and respects me is something that seems to be easy for her to show. She shows interest in things that I love (programming, philosophy) that she knows little or nothing about--but expresses and shows a desire to learn. She strongly argues with me when she disagrees, but does so in a rational, non-combative manner that doesn't compromise her passion. She has a knowledge and love of music that rivals my own (and with 6-700 CDs in my collection, that's significant!)

In short, she has all of the qualities of personality that I thought would be ideal in a romantic partner.

We've spent an enormous amount of time together since we started dating. Almost half of every week has been spent together. The time has been an orgy of sharing DVD's, CD's, books, and ideas. Mucho fun-do!

So, cheers and celebrations to Emily and me!

Wolfsheim

My girlfriend introduced me to this German synth-pop group called Wolfsheim. I have no idea what this song is about, but I love it. It reminds me quite a bit of Depeche Mode.

The song is called "Kein Zurück."
Enjoy!

"There are no atheists in foxholes"

Ummm, beg to differ:
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/14322117/site/newsweek/

Sex and Ideas in Developing Adults

When I was a teenager, the biggest fight I had with my mother was over the media I enjoyed. She disapproved of my Stephen King novels, heavy metal cassettes, and choice of movie and television watching. I wasn't allowed to see a movie with a higher than PG rating, and was disallowed from ever entering a friend's house again after seeing a film that contained a half-second of nudity. My mother's argument was that my choice of media would turn me into a bad human being. That view depends on the idea that media causes behavior, and that human choice is so limited as to be practically irrelevant. Apparently she is not alone in that belief.

The Rand Corporation recently released a study claiming that watching television with a high degree of sexual content leads to more and earlier sexual activity amongst adolescents. Studies like this always catch my attention because of my experience with my mother. I didn't believe it when she said it, explaining that demons that live in the music would go into my brain and take over my soul. But this study is "scientific," and I'm a proponent of science, so it deserves more attention.

The first thing that needs to be said is that this information, if true, is presented like it's a huge terrible thing. Hello? Teen-agers have been having sex... FOREVER! As to the lack of negative consequences portrayed on television--it's not the job of TV to educate people; that's the job of SCHOOLS or PARENTS! Further, the contra-dictory standards we hold in this country about sex are abominable. We combine sexual liberation (in both it's legitimate non-guilty form, and it's illegitimate free-love form) with sexual repression. As adults we watch "Sex in the City," and spend a lot of time and money thinking about and pursuing sex. But we tell teen-agers: "Sex is bad, m'kay? Don't have sex, m'kay?"

In the past I have estimated that over half the people I went to high-school with had had sex by the time they were 16 years old. The Rand corporation puts that figure closer to 46%. 15-16 seems to be the time when most people have sex. Maybe someone should do a study of people of all age groups asking when was the first time they had sex--and maybe that study should span countries around the world. I wonder if the answer would be any different. I hypothesize that it would not. The only such study a quick googling was able to find put the average age for first-time sex at 14.8 in California.

A Digression:

My great-great grandmother, Lizzie, was 15 when she got married. She came home (to her mother's) on her wedding night livid, but she would not talk about what had happened. It took 3 days for her mother to pry out of her what had happened. She finally exclaimed "He got fresh with me!"

On the surface, this story is funny. But it also shows the extent to which people were unwilling to discuss sex in my great-great-grandmother's day. She was 16 when my great-grandmother was born. My great-Grandmother was 17 when my grandmother was born. My grandmother was 17 when her first child was born. My mother was 16 when her first child (me) was born. Granted, this is not a scientific study--but it is a series of personal anecdotes spanning 5 generations that at least makes the question of "when do most people have sex" viable.

Making the digression relevant:

Don't we have to know what the normal age is for first-time-sex before we can start positing reasons that adolescents have sex earlier? Isn't the assumption that teens are having sex earlier based on some concept of what is normal?

The Study:

The study was conducted with two waves of phone interviews of 1792 adolescents between 12 and 17 years of age. The phone interviews were conducted a year apart. The interviews sought information from the teens on TV viewing habits, and sexual activity. They found that students that watched higher rates of sexual activity on tv, had more sex more often.

No shit, sherlock.

My first thought upon hearing this was that people who are more interested in having sex will seek out and watch more sex on television. The Rand Corporation responds to that argument thusly: "Relationships between viewing sexual content and advancing sexual behavior were not attributable to the effects of developing sexual behavior on selective viewing of sexual content. Our analyses controlled for adolescents’ level of sexual activity at baseline, rendering an explanation of reverse causality for our findings implausible."

But later they say: "A limitation of this research was our inability to control for adolescent interest in sex or sexual readiness before TV viewing. Youths who are considering coital or noncoital activities that they have not yet enacted may watch more sex on TV (eg, to get information or to satisfy desires). They may subsequently engage in these sexual activities sooner but as a result of their higher levels of interest, not as a result of their TV exposure. It was not possible for us to test for this alternative interpretation of our results with only 2 waves of data. "

I'm no statistician, and I'll admit that there's a lot in this study that I just flat don't understand, but I think the above is pretty damn clear.

Conclusions:

Look people, it's really simple. Teen-agers have sex. Maybe you don't like to think about little-Johnny or Susie in the back seat of a car, but it happens. Instead 0f blaming television, music, books, or whatnot--put the blame where it belongs: on biology and personal choice; or if you're religious--blame GOD since he made you the way you are (joking, there is no god). This study by Rand is just another "demons in your brain" explanation of human behavior. Human beings have the faculty of choice, and do not have to accept by osmosis everything they're exposed to on television. Each person is responsible for their own ideas and their own actions.

Sex isn't bad. Let's drop the puritanical sexual morality most of us have subconsciously adopted and spend more time teaching teen-agers how to have sex in a responsible manner instead of trying to hide it from them. This means sex-education that does mention prophylactics, whether it's in a classroom or at home. Follow-up: in light of the fact that most people (at least in California) are having sex at 14.8, aren't age-of-consent laws lower than 15 just plain stupid?

When Free Speech is under attack...

... by it's supposed defenders, it just gets stuck in my craw!

Leftists fancy themselves the protectors of free speech--often comparing themselves favorably against conservatives who often wish to censor books, music, video games, and any other source of potentially ideological content that exists in the marketplace. However, environmentalist leftists have recently shown unity with conservatives on an issue of great importance: just as the conservatives are at root against science (consider George Bush's recent veto regarding stem cell research, not to mention the attempts to put religionist-creationist-magic-man-in-the-sky "theories" on par with natural selection), and now several major environmentalist groups are joining with the State of California to "force auto makers to disclose all documents and communications between the companies and the so-called 'climate-skeptics'"

The context of this request filed in federal court is a case in which auto makers are "challenging the state's greenhouse gas emissions limits for new cars." Apparently California believes that climate skeptics play a "major role in spreading disinformation about global warming." Notice that California is not seeking communications between auto-makers and any outside interested party regardless of their stand on global warming--they are singling out a group of people based on a position they take on a controversial issue.

"Free speech" to California and the Sierra Club seems to mean the right only to agree with them on issues of ecology. This motion is only a first step toward establishing a legal precedent for illegalizing "the spread of disinformation"--by which is meant the spreading of any information that amounts to disagreement with the currently entrenched State. Ironic that a movement born of fighting against the Establishment has now become the Establishment; Ironic that a movement claiming the right to speak the truth in opposition to the Party Line now wishes to deprive others of the same right.

I grant that California is not (yet) seeking to penalize or otherwise criminally charge the "climate skeptics"--but one should always take note when the state begins segregating people by their ideas. The fact that California has listed certain very prominent syndicated columnists is scary enough.

I predict that it won't be long before someone invents some new buzzword indicating an emotionally pleasing (to some) but still invalid exemption to the First Amendment. There's already precedent for it on the subject of "Hate Speech." If the eco-terrorists have their way, it will soon become a crime to hurt the "feelings" of the earth-minded just as it is now a crime to hurt the feelings of minority groups. Note too that "Hate Speech" laws are most commonly favored by leftists.

Any takers on what the new buzzword will be? There are rules about this you know--buzzwords have to be easy to say, so "Industrial Speech" is right out. They also have to disguise the thing they're hiding, so "Speech that doesn't agree with eco-terrorists" and "Anti-Green" speech is right out also. Maybe something like "Dangerous Speech"--no, that's too long. But we could shorten it--"Danger Speech?" Maybe it could be done in two stages. Maybe there could first be a campaign against "anthropomorphic values" and then when "anthropomorhpic" is part of the mainstream political vocabulary, the new buzzword could be "Anthro Speech." Nah, sounds too complicated. It's there... somewhere. Some whacko will find it.

I'm not sure--these things are hard to predict. What's not hard to predict is that the assault on the First Amendment will continue from both liberals and conservatives, and that those of use that know what free speech is must stand against them all. Men have only two ways of dealing with one another--persuasion, and force. The First Amendment protects our right to persuade. When it falls, there will be no other way to change things but violence.

So, if you care about the integrity of your own mind, "SPEAK NOW OR YOU WILL FOREVER HOLD YOUR PEACE!"

We forget so soon...

Cox and Forkum have a nice reminder of just how much of an enemy Hezbollah really is to us.
Check the July 23 post.
Remember that when you hear people calling for a "proportionate" response.

Cool!

Star Wars Theme ...
Played on the banjo ....
and not by Bela Fleck.

TOS is hitting them out of the park today.

This is the clearest discussion of the "net neutrality" issue that I've seen. The whole thing smells strongly of the Tragedy of the Commons (TotC). The problem with the TotC is the "commons." Let all land (or internet bandwidth) be privately owned, and let each person pay for what he uses, and the TotC disappears.

Argh!

A Nice Article from TOS

The Objective Standard published a nice editorial about our so-called "addiction" to oil. To this I would simply add that I do not accept any part of the premise that American's should have to sacrifice anything at all for the sake of our enemies.

The Hairy Leg Principle

I have a post on a relationship skill in mind, but it is in part logically dependent upon what I call the Hairy Leg Principle. The Hairy Leg Principle has been a part of my intellectual repertoire long enough that I thought it deserved its own post.

The Hairy Leg Principle Defined: The notion that the value of another's love for you is proportional to how you understand and respect their reason's for loving you.

To place the Hairy Leg Principle in context, consider how love is often described as "unconditional." But is it really? And would you want it to be?

Which would you rather hear: "Although there is nothing about you that I respect and admire, enjoy or otherwise consider to be of value, I love you." Or: "You are a [wo]man of unsurpassed character, intelligence, and wisdom. Because of that, I love you." I think most people would rather hear the second--and would be insulted by the first.

So, the Hairy Leg Principle presumes that love is conditionally based--but it goes further than that. For you to value the other person's love, you must understand and respect their reason's for loving you. This understanding does not necessarily have to be explicit (although I find it much more exciting when it is), but there does have to be understanding nonetheless.

Respect is also a key component. If someone claims to love you for reasons that you find silly or non-essential, their love will have no value to you. In my own case, if someone told me they loved me because I had hairy legs, I would not be able to respect or enjoy their affection at all. The amount of hair I have on my legs is inessential to my hierarchy of values. Thus the named "Hairy Leg Principle." When my grandmother tells me she loves me because I am her grandson, she's basically telling me that she loves me because we happen to share some DNA. Hello? I share 98% of my DNA with a chimpanzee! How irrelevant can you get?! But, when she calls me to tell me about an idea that she heard, that she thought I would appreciate--she doesn't even have to say she loves me--the fact that she recognizes an idea that I would appreciate, and bothers to call me and tell me about it registers that fact far more clearly than "because I'm her grandson." Incidentally, that phone call, which I received several months ago, is the first time in my adult life that I've felt that she had real esteem for me. It was the first time that her actions fit her words.

In my own case, I consider it silly to love me or anyone else for any reason that is beyond their choice. Sure, you may "love" their hair-color, or eye-color or something--but those things are not primaries. That's not to say that don't have their own importance--there is no mind-body dichotomy--attraction is in part physical--but they are not primaries.

So, love me for my rationality, my interest in ideas, or my zest for life. Or love me not.

On this day...

... let us remember the men and women that pledged their lives and fortunes to the cause of individual rights.

I salute you.

Let us remember all the men and women that fought to protect the security of this country from would-be invaders and oppressors.

I salute you.

Let us remember ourselves--those of us that are pledged to fight for the cause of individual rights in the modern era both at home and abroad.

I salute you.

Happy Independence Day!

Black Horse and a Cherry Tree

I don't listen to the radio, so I was a little slow coming across this song by K.T. Tunstall. If you haven't heard it, it's quite energetic and fun.
Check it out!

Ice Scribe got a Short Story Published!

---and it's quite good. She let me read it before, and I enjoyed it very much. Now you can enjoy it too! YAY!

The consequences of an appeasement policy...

... are that some piss-ant little country with a chip on its shoulder can threaten to start World War III. It is not just obscene that North Korea has so openly threatened us, but even moreso that they obviously expect to do so without repercussions. Get this straight--country's that violate the rights of their own citizens don't care one whit about your rights. Diplomacy for them is a game that they play to gain time to become an actual threat. Appeasment = Death on a massive scale for combatants on both sides of the conflict.

For a country so obviously superior in military terms to allow North Korea to become the threat that they have is unconscionable. I fear that war, and perhaps Nuclear conflict, may be inevitable at this point. It could have been avoided if the US had acted when the threat began, instead of allowing it to blossom. The blame lies squarely on those that refuse to ackowledge history; that appeasement promotes further conflict. If you are truly against war, you should advocate that the US respond to threats with immediate and overwhelming force--to dissuade other would-be attackers from leading us down this road. Indeed we have become the "paper tiger."

For a serious analysis on what is wrong with current American foreign policy, and what has led us to this point, read this article.

"First smiles, then lies. Last comes gunfire."- Roland Deschain, of Gilead, Stephen King, The Dark Tower.

Hear, Hear, Trey!

Trey has a nice post responding to a victim of the MUP.
Case in point, I'd say.

"State Sponsored Piracy"

This article is about the French government's own Equalization of Opportunity Bill (spoiler, Em). If Apple does pull their iTunes service out of France, I will buy an iPod instead of the Dell Jukebox I was planning on getting.

--Hat Tip, John for the link, and the relationship to the EOB.

Philosophic Detection: Environmentalism, Religion and the MUP

The MUP (Malevolent Universe Premise) is the often unstated, emotionally held idea that the universe is inimical to man. In this view, the universe is a dangerous place where any joy is fleeting, to be destroyed by the coming disaster--where pain, despair, and death are the common, and pleasure, happiness, and life are the rare.

On the surface, it's obvious how environmentalists relate to the MUP--they routinely see in every scientific/industrial advance the seeds of the destruction of all humanity. Everything men do to try to better themselves results in more alienation, disease, and death. Their solution (when they're consistent) is to leave industrial society and live like Rousseau's "noble savages" in "harmony" with nature.

But the level of acceptance of the MUP by environmentalists is much deeper, and has more significant cognitive consequences than what I've already alluded to. This was made apparent to me when I was talking to J., a friend of mine who is no longer an environmentalist, but used to be a card-carrying member of the Sierra club. We were discussing the dependency of modern industrial society on oil. He sounded the usual worry of "what are we going to do when we run out of oil?"

"We'll use a new resource," I said.

"What about when we run out of that?"

My response was that there is really only one natural resource: man's mind. It is the task of man's mind to discover, produce, and consume the requirements of his life and happiness. If oil becomes scarce, man will put his mind to the task of discovering a new source of energy. (In fact, we already have one that the environmentalists oppose--nuclear energy.) J. was not able to immediately accept this idea--to my knowledge, he still has not; but I think it's just a matter of time until he does--but he was unable to offer any rational argument against it. His response basically amounted to "I disagree."

I thought about this quite a bit--why is it so hard for him to imagine that man could actually produce the long-term requirements of his life and happiness? That's when it hit me--the MUP. He had accepted the idea that man, through accident or malice, could easily destroy the entire human race through any attempt at progress. He could not accept the idea that man is capable of elevating the entire human race through a process of sustained productive thought.

Environmentalists and other anti-science people often exclaim "what arrogance man has to 'rape' the earth of her natural resources, to think that he can play God." I used to think they did this in an attempt to portray man of small stature. That idea is contradicted by the fact that when it comes to man's destructive power, they portray him as a juggernaut. Get it? When considering man's productive capacity, they say he has none; but when considering his destructive power, suddenly man is a super-villain the likes of which Stan Lee never imagined. It's not that they need to portray man as small--it's that they need to portray industry, productivity, and the reasoning scientific mind as destructive. Since these things are man's means of living, this means that man's life is inherently self-destructive! The universe, to them, is a place where every attempt by man to live and be happy will only rain destruction and punishment. His only option, in their view, is that man must renounce his arrogance (industry, science), and prostrate himself before a more powerful authority (Mother Nature, God), hoping that his life will be merely miserable, instead of an exercise in terror and grief.

In most people, this is not an explicitly held viewpoint--but it exists nonetheless as an emotional color on their thinking. It's easier for them to accept tales of man's self-destructive capacity--they regard it as unfortunate, but common. It's nearly impossible for them to imagine tales of man's heroism--they regard it with suspicion, and sometimes a tinge of fear.

This is part of why philosophy is so important. Philsophy can answer the question "What kind of universe do I live in?" Is the MUP rational? Or is the universe the kind of place where man can live, and be happy? My answer to that question should be obvious, but for the record, I believe in a benevolent universe--not in the sense that the universe is out to help me in some way, but in the sense that it is the kind of place that I can understand, live in, and achieve my happiness.

The cost of convenience

I wasn't always a white-collar worker earning a decent living. I used to work in fast-food restaurants, factories, and whatnot. During those years, money was hard to come by, and too easy to spend. I would wait in line at the cheaper gas station to save 50 cents, or shop for groceries and clothes at Wal-Mart because the prices were cheaper.

Nowadays, I earn enough money that I don't really have to worry about money too much. I'm still not rolling in it--I can't just go spending hog-wild and expect to have anything left. I'd love to have a couple of 19" flat panel monitors for my computer, but my savings isn't where it's supposed to be right now, so--delayed.

But, without really noticing it, my shopping habits have changed. I go to Target for my basic clothing needs. I buy gas from the pricier place. I buy groceries from Publix. All of these places are a bit more expensive than my former choices, but not by much. The reason I started choosing them was because they are more convenient. I don't have to wait in line for gas at the pricier station. I don't have to work my way through narrow crowded aisles filled with screaming children at Target and Publix. Further, I find that the general quality of items available is better at Target and the Publix Deli. This makes sense of course--Wal Mart's entire business model is devoted to "cheap"--and there was a time when that was of primary importance to me. I'm glad it was there for me when I needed it, but that time is gone now. Between the crowded aisles and the long lines, Wal-Mart literally isn't worth my time.

Lesson: convenience has a cost--it's about 50 cents for gas, and about $5 per person per week at retail/food establishments. Sounds great to me!

Bush's New Executive Order

Here's the link to "Executive Order: Protecting the Property Rights of the American People" I'm not sure how this plays out against the recent Supreme Court decision on eminent domain.

"It is the policy of the United States to protect the rights of Americans to their private property, including by limiting the taking of private property by the Federal Government to situations in which the taking is for public use, with just compensation, and for the purpose of benefiting the general public and not merely for the purpose of advancing the economic interest of private parties to be given ownership or use of the property taken. "

This clause only applies to the Federal Government, so it doesn't do anything about cases where it is the state and county taking private land for private use. Further, I thought that one of the key arguments in the recent Supreme Court case was that taking private land for private use could be considered "public" use if it provided enough "common good" to the community. So, to my friends that have greater legal knowledge than myself I ask the question: "Does this order actually accomplish anything?"

If ever you needed proof...

... that modern art was intellectually bankrupt:

Knowing what you're talking about

I can name the 6 major Objectivist virtues off the top of my head. Granted, 6 is 4 less than 10, but you'd still think that someone that's so interested in the 10 commandments would know them. Colbert proves that that just ain't so.

Here's another chisel mark on the First Amendment

Read about how Oklahoma is trying to regulate the content of video games:
http://xbox.ign.com/articles/712/712144p1.html

Epistemology and Agile Software Development

Non programmers probably will not get anything out of this post.

Epistemology has long been a favorite subject of mind. I’m fascinated generally with how the mind works, and reading Introduction to Objectivist Epistemology was an electrifying read for me. As a software developer, I continually strive to find better ways to write code. For the last six years, there has not been a single week when I have not looked at code I wrote just a couple of months before and thought, “that’s crap.” About a year and a half ago, thanks to my friend the Philosophical Detective, I read Agile Software Development by Robert C. Martin. It was the Atlas Shrugged of my software development career. Lately, I have been devouring books on design patterns and refactoring. Mostly I’ve been focused on the Martin Fowler related books due to the respect I’ve gained for him while reading his blog. During all this reading, I have been intrigued by the relationship between software design and technical epistemology. I’m going to talk a little about two elements of Agile Software Development, Design Patterns and Test Driven Development, in this blog.

Design Patterns

In his book Patterns of Enterprise Application Architecture, Martin Fowler quotes architect Christopher Alexander on what a pattern is: “Each pattern describes a problem which occurs over and over again in our environment, and then describes the core of the solution to that problem, in such a way that you can use the solution a million times over, without ever doing it the same way twice.” To rephrase, a pattern is a conceptual solution to a conceptual problem, where both the problem and the solution differ in their particulars from concrete instance to concrete instance. Martin Fowler continues: “a pattern is a chunk of advice, and the art of creating patterns is to divide up many pieces of advice into relatively independent chunks so that you can refer to them and discuss them more or less separately.” Further, “Once you need a pattern, you have to figure out how to apply it to your circumstances. A key thing about patterns is that you can never just apply the solution blindly… you see the same solution many times over, but it’s never exactly the same.” Fowler then emphasizes how important it is to give patterns a name: “patterns create a vocabulary about design, which is why naming is such an important issue.”

Let’s step back for a moment. Software development is an inherently logical and creative process. As developers, we are given some basic tools to work with that are constants in just about every programming language. These are variables, statements, conditional constructs, and loops. In languages such as COBOL, that’s all there is. All variables are global, and processing proceeds in sequence from one instruction to the next. This is great for small programs that just do one thing—but if the program achieves a certain level of complexity, it begins to overload the mind—to bust the crow, so to speak.

In more advanced languages, variables, statements, conditionals, and loops began to be organized into self-contained reusable code constructs called functions. Functions can be called over and over again—they always do the same set of instructions in the same order, but those instructions are only written once. Functions had the advantage of allowing you to consider a single set of instructions as a unit. This had the effect of organizing and clarifying the logic of the code. It had a further side-effect of enabling programmers to write ever more complicated programs: by organizing our logic into functions, we can treat whole pieces of logic as if they were single statements. The relationship to first-level concepts should be clear to any Objectivist.

In OOP Languages, you can go a step further and organize functions into objects. An object in an OOP language is of a higher order of complexity than functions, much as abstractions from abstractions are of a higher order of complexity than first level concepts. There are a few kinds of objects than can be created, and a few ways to create them—but there are millions of programming problems to solve. In my first couple of years as a developer, I thought objects were the conceptual height of software development. I didn’t know about Design Patterns at the time, and had yet to struggle with the decisions of when to use inheritance, or polymorphism. I would have to say, as an aside, that I overused inheritance.

Design Patterns make programming fully conceptual. Patterns focus not only on the abstractions describing programming constructs, but also on abstractions that describe common software problems and solutions. Since patterns are not limited to particular software constructs, they are not limited to any particular programming language, environment, or time. They assume an OOP language as a foundation. This is a requirement since you cannot have a conceptual solution to a problem without a conceptual tool. Patterns have a name, an intent (think definition), and are usually described with an example—much like a dictionary provides you with a sample usage of a word it has just defined for you. The example is a simple one so that the essential idea can be easily seen, but must be adapted to your particular solution. The result for the programmer is a new concept to use to solve development problems. Patterns can themselves be organized into more complex patterns, thus making them open-ended for extension and discovery.

Test Driven Development

Test Driven Development is the practice of writing a unit of code that generates an error because some feature of the program is not present, or does not work correctly. It is important to write the test code prior to attempting to implement the feature. Thus, when you write the test, it will immediately fail. Now that you have a test for the feature, it is time to write the feature. When the test for the new feature passes, and all other tests for all other features also pass, you are still not done. You must now look at your code, isolate similarites to other code, and refactor. A unit test should be no more than a few lines of code (I try to limit myself to 10 lines) so that what is being tested can be easily understood (in other words, don’t bust the crow of the reader).

Since a requirement of unit tests is clarity, you are forced—before you write any code—to think about how the code should look so as to “read” clearly. I actually read the code aloud so that I can hear how it sounds. The code must read almost like English. You have to think carefully about how you name objects, functions, and variables, so that the name itself identifies what it does. Gone are the days when you abbreviate everything--long function and variable names are fine if they're needed to describe what they do. In short, you have to encapsulate a piece of programming functionality in a “unit” of code. This makes every feature of your system executable in only a few lines of code. This requirement alone has huge implications for how you design your class libraries: you must keep your classes small and lightweight, and make interaction between your classes easy and open-ended. Each class should have one responsibility. All of these pressures are in place before you ever write the first line of code! The unit test “defines” how the code will work.

During the implementation phase, you are just trying to get the test to pass. You’re not worried if the code is pretty, if it’s organized, if it’s the best design. You’re just trying to get something together that actually works. This is analogous to “chewing” a concept, in my opinion.

During the refactoring phase, you are looking for ways to more deeply integrate your new code into the existing code base. This may mean breaking your new code into smaller functions or objects, extending existing objects to handle some of the functionality of your new code, etc.. Regardless, the refactoring phase is analogous to integrating the concept after it has been defined and chewed. The refactoring phase could be a tempting one for some programmers to overlook--after all, at this point the code works, so why toy with it? Because software must have integrity. If you cheat your design on this feature, then you'll cheat on your next one. Before you know it, your program will be a mass of repetitive, slightly different, unmanageable spaghetti-code. Refactoring is the principle that keeps your code integrated.

Another benefit of unit testing is automated regression testing. This is the easiest benefit for project managers to see, but I think the further conceptualization of the code is by far the best benefit. I make heavy use of the automated regression testing--but I find that because the code is conceptualized so well before I write it, I rarely have to make large structural changes to the code base. Of course, since all the features of the app are unit-tested, I can make those changes freely when necessary.

Closing Thoughts

One of the most interesting changes that has taken place in the last couple of years, since I started practicing TDD and studying design patterns is how seldom I use inheritance. When I first started programming in OOP languages, I used inheritance to add functionality to existing objects a lot. The result was that I would have an inheritance chain 5 and 10 layers deep. One of the things that TDD and Patterns forced me to learn was when a class has too many responsibilities. I had to learn to create new, smaller classes, and define interaction patterns between them instead of relying on inheritance to solve my problems. I’ve reached a point now where inheritance is pretty near the last solution I reach for when trying to solve a programming problem. I’m not saying that inheritance is bad—I’m just observing that it’s not nearly so great a tool now that I have access to more powerful abstractions to use in my code.

X3 Review

Overall rating: 2.5 out of 5

Spoiler Warning.

X-3 was a major disappointment to me. When I walked into the theater to see the first X-Men movie, I was expecting just another cheesy superhero flick. The opening scene in German-occupied Poland during WWII destroyed that expectation. It was powerful, emotional, and moving. It set a tone, that as much as this movie was going to be about superhero's, it would also be about people. The second sequence, where Marie nearly kills her boyfriend with a kiss confirmed that feeling. From then on, the film focused on telling the story of some people that have discovered that they are different in fairly serious way from everyone else. It focused on the distrust between normal people and mutants, yet it confirmed the humanity of both. The parallels to racism and homosexual haters was everpresent, but not overstated. Still, the primary conflict of the first film was not mutants vs. people, but mutants vs. other mutants that wanted to launch a pre-emptive strike against the normal people.

The second film continued the tradition of the first. Again, the film was about people. It introduced a couple of new mutants, but showed marvelous restraint in that regard. The new mutants were given the same care and attention to storytelling as were the original cast, and the story of the original cast was extended somewhat. There was more action in the second film, but it also had a lot of story from the first film propping it up.

The first two films were done by Bryan Singer, director of The Usual Suspects (one of the most tightly crafted movies I've ever seen), and producer of House. Singer did not do the third film because he was busy working on Superman Returns. Were I FOX, I would have waited.

The 3rd movie is all-over-the-place. Rumor has it that the script was being re-written daily--and it shows. It's like they couldn't decide what story to tell, but it also looks like that knew exactly what action sequences they were going to shoot. I use the term "story" loosely--there are actually two separate, independent story arcs that were slammed together, but not integrated.

The first story concerns the development of a cure for the Mutant X gene. Of the two, this is the most interesting. A pharmaceutical company has developed a cure and made it available to anyone that wants it. It raises an interesting question: who wants it? If you had the chance to change something fundamental about yourself, would you do it?

The war-mongering mutants see this as a dire threat and warn that the cure will be used as a weapon--which it is--against the attacks of the war-mongering mutants. Magneto's bunch see's any mutant that takes the cure as a "traitor to their kind." This is interesting because now Magneto has become the racist bastard that he's always accusing everyone else of being. The other mutants see it as a matter of personal choice. This is all good fodder for storytelling, so what went wrong?

The story wasn't told. It was used merely as an excuse to get to the next action sequence.

This movie was overloaded with mutants. Whereas Bryan Singer had taken care to introduce new mutants with the attendant screen-time to make them real and human, Brett Ratner just threw them at you right and left. Angel was a couple of minutes of the movie, and as much as I enjoyed Kelsey Grammar's performance as Beast, like Angel, it was wasted screen time. In fact, the Beast story had real potential.

We're given the sense that this movie takes place some time after the first two. There is an a Ministry of Mutant Affairs in the government, headed by a Mutant--Beast. Beast later leaves his post in the presidential cabinent over conscientious objections to the cure being used as a weapon. This could have been really exciting, dramatic storytelling. Instead, it was mentioned as an afterthought, after it had happened.

Even the opening scene displayed what was wrong with the movie. In the first film, we open on Poland. In the second one, we open on an attack on the President by a mutant in the White House. In each of the first two movies, the opening scene was relevant to the plot of the movie. The Poland experience explains why Magneto wants to launch a pre-emptive strike against humans. The attack on the President leads to Presidential authorization of the search at Xavier's school which ---you get the idea. The opening scene in X-3 considered qua action sequence was quite good--but it was unrelated to anything that happened later in the movie.

My final gripe is that all the mutants are now over-powered. I don't remember Storm being able to jump 5 stories in the first two films, or Wolverine for that matter. No attention was paid to making sure that the characters were the same as in the first two films.

I did like the movie--in the same way that I might watch an Arnold Schwarzenegger action flick--as a mindless action story where story is an excuse to watch things blow up. That has its place, but after X1 and X2, I expected more from X3.

Imogen Heap Live in Concert: A Review

I saw Imogen Heap perform in Atlanta a couple of weeks ago. The venue was the Variety Playhouse. I haven't been there since I went with my buddy D. some 12 years ago to see Sarah McLachlan on the Fumbling Towards Ecstacy tour. It hasn't changed much.

The venue is relatively small--seating exactly 681 people according the fire marshall. This is nice because it means that there isn't really a bad seat in the house.

Zoe Keating opened for Imogen. Zoe is a solo cellist, making use of some modern effects processors. She relied very heavily on a looping machine. She would play something, which would be recorded by the looping machine and replayed over and over. Then she would harmonize against that, slowly building a whole piece of music. It's an interesting idea, but it doesn't really work that well. As you listen, you find yourself waiting for her to have built the actual music so you can enjoy it. She had some interesting musical ideas, but the over-reliance on looping detracted from my ability to enjoy it.

Enter Imogen Heap. First of all, the woman is just downright beautiful. Even through the big-wild hair and crazy make-up and loud clothing, you can tell that there's a beautiful woman on stage. I was a little concerned about going to see her live because she is just a solo performer--and worse she's a solo performer playing as a whole band. I was worried that she would be stuck behind her keyboards and it would be difficult to enjoy the show. Boy was I wrong!

She started the show with an a-cappella version of "Just for Now." Imogen uses a lot of the same looping technology that Zoe Keating did, but in Imogen's hands it never felt contrived. Each pass through the loop enhanced what was already a nice piece of music to start with. Zoe illustrated what the technique was. Imogen illustrated what could be done with it in the hands of a master.

The arrangements to many of the songs she performed were quite different than what you hear on her albums. It's clear that the arrangements were designed with the live show in mind. Imogen would play for a bit, building something that could then be allowed to play on its own for a minute--then she would grab the mic and dance out from behind the keyboards, crooning and wailing where appropriate. I was impressed with how vibrant and active she was on stage--at how this one woman commanded your attention for a full 2 hours. I was shocked at how loud the music was, and at how hard it rocked.

Imogen Heap is a wonderful song-writer and musician in her own right, but that doesn't always translate into a good performer. She is a masterful performer. If you get the chance to see her live, don't miss it. She is amazing.

$

So it's not just guns...

Interesting...
http://www.scotland.gov.uk/News/Releases/2004/11/22133220

Next it'll be clubs. Apparently getting rid of the guns didn't get rid of the crime. Funny that.

On being sick, and other stuff

Being sick blows. I started feeling a bit wonky yesterday, and it got a bit worse today. My boss suggested that I visit the on-site nurse-practitioner. What a great idea! I had forgotten that my company had hired a full-time nurse to deal with day-to-day health issues of the employees. This is a really great benefit!

She suggested that I get some over-the-counter medication. I did, but after a while, I was still feeling worse. Concentration was simply out of the question, so reluctantly, I came home. I have had a pounding headache all day along with throat irritation, radical temperature changes, and coughing. Sleep has not been restful in the least.

I'm having a bit of lucidity right now, so I figured I'd bitch about being sick to the world!--or at least to the 5 or 6 people that read my blog. :-)

In other news, I'm fascinated by the inspiration that Christians are taking from Muslims. After the Danish cartoon debacle, President Bush's statement that "all religions should be respected" is now being used as an argument to ban the movie version of "The Da Vinci Code." I have not yet read the Da Vinci code. As an atheist, I don't much care if Jesus was married or not. However, I'm given to understand that it's quite the well-written thriller. I intend to read it at some point for that reason.

A year ago, Christians would only have half-heartedly called for "The Da Vinci Code" to be banned. After seeing how the Muslims got their way with the cartoons, they have gotten braver, more insistent. This is a very dangerous trend that must be opposed vehemently. It must be made clear that free speech means the right to disagree: to hold views that do violate the sensibilities of others. Specifically, the sensibilities of others do not matter when considering the issue of the First Amendment. That the president of this country should state otherwise is downright scary.

What little lucidity I had is fading, so I'll sign off now.
$

More on the Bausch & Lomb contact lense issue

Here is the text of the media release:

For Immediate Release
May 9, 2006
Contact: CDC Media Relations
(404)-639-3286


Fusarium Keratitis Update
The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) is continuing its investigation on the multi-state outbreak of Fusarium keratitis that may be associated with contact lens use.

As of May 9, 2006, CDC has received reports of 106 confirmed cases, 12 possible cases and 80 cases still under investigation from 32 U.S. states and territories. 69 reports include insufficient evidence to classify them as cases or carry other non-Fusarium diagnoses. States or territories with at least 1 confirmed or possible case include: AR, AZ, CA, CT, FL, GA, IA, IL, KS, KY, LA, MA, MD, MI, MO, NC, ND, NJ, NY, OH, OK, PA, PR, TN, TX and VT. States where all cases under investigation include: IN, MN, MS, NV, OR and RI.

Not all data are available for all confirmed cases. However, as of May 9, 2006, of the 98 confirmed cases for which CDC has complete data:

5 (5%) did not wear contact lenses (no solution used)
93 (95%) wore contact lenses
59 (63%) reported using any B&L ReNu with MoistureLoc
19 (20%) reported using any B&L ReNu MultiPlus
9 (10%) reported using any unspecified B&L ReNu
3 (3%) reported using any AMO product
4 (4%) reported using any Alcon product
* Some cases reported using more than one type of solution and therefore the solution categories are not mutually exclusive.

(Note: Updated case count numbers will be available on Tuesdays and Fridays. Updated numbers on solution use and other pertinent exposures will be available on Tuesdays.)

Summary and Clarifications
In addition, CDC would like to clarify some of the information that has appeared in a number of recent media stories on the outbreak. The following information is known related to this outbreak:

Since the first report on this outbreak in the April 10, 2006 Morbidity and Mortality Weekly Report (MMWR), CDC has noted that patients have reported using multiple products, including those manufactured by Bausch & Lomb, Alcon, and Advanced Medical Optics, Inc.
At this point, it is too early in the investigation to say whether a particular product or solution may be responsible for the outbreak.
Throughout the investigation, the proportion of patients who reported using Bausch & Lomb's ReNu with MoistureLoc has remained relatively consistent, at around 50-60 percent of confirmed cases.
Since solution bottles were often not available to investigators, reported solution usually reflects patient recall of specific product used during the 30 days before infection. No inferences about causes of infection should be made until additional analyses are completed.
ReNu with MoistureLoc was used by approximately 2.3 million contact lens wearers in the United States, while MultiPlus was used by nearly 11 million contact lens wearers (branded or private label).
Fusarium keratitis is naturally occurring disease in the United States. It is not a disease that healthcare providers must report so it is unclear how many cases occur each year in the United States.
Disease outbreaks and increased media coverage often raise awareness about particular infections, which, in turn, may 1) increase reports of a disease and 2) result in additional information being identified and collected. Thus, it is possible that some of the cases currently being investigated represent infection which might normally occur and, as a result, are not related to the outbreak.
The risk of getting fungal keratitis from contact lenses remains extremely low. Contact lens wearers who experience unusual redness, pain, tearing, light sensitivity, blurry vision, discharge or swelling should consult their doctor immediately.
CDC is continuing its investigation into identifying whether there are specific factors that may have placed people at risk for developing fungal keratitis, including hygiene practices, overnight contact lens wear and specific solutions used. The CDC will provide more information as it becomes available.

For more information on fungal keratitis and advice to doctors and consumers, please visit http://www.cdc.gov/ncidod/dhqp/fungal_fusariumKeratitis.html or http://www.fda.gov/oc/opacom/hottopics/contacts.html.

WAKE UP AMERICA!

WAKE UP AMERICA!

Goodnight and Go

Here's the new Imogen Heap video for "Goodnight and Go."

"Goodnight and Go" isn't my favorite song on "Speak for Yourself," but there's not a song on the album I don't like. The video presents a slightly different mix than what's on the album as well. Still, if you're unfamiliar with her music, "Goodnight and Go" is an okay place to start. It's got the ethereal harmonies, the subdued electronica beats, and the catchy melodic and lyrical phrasing that make her distinctive.

I just got her first album in the mail yesterday. I had to order it from Brazil because it's out of print. Apparently some guy in Brazil had 84 unopened copies. Yay Ebay!

Oh what a difference

a smile makes. I bought Alanis Morissette's "Jagged Little Pill" album when it came out, and I don't regret the purchase. The album is full of interesting musical and lyrical ideas. I hadn't known that she was a fan of Cole Porter, but her cameo in "De-Lovely" made that plain, and then it all made sense. Her lyrics (especially "Ironic") are very Porter-esque.

As much as I have admired Alanis for her lyrical and musical ability, I never really thought she had a great voice, or that she was very attractive. Her appearance in "De-lovely" put the former perception to rest; her appearance in the "Everything" video puts the latter to rest as well. At almost exactly 35 seconds into the video, after her hair is cut, and she is just beginning the second line of the chorus ("You see every part"), her face bursts into this radiant smile. The first time I saw it I was literally stunned. I mean stunned. I couldn't believe it. I have never seen a woman go from "who cares" to "Oh my GOD!" so quickly. I was filled with the emotional equivalent of "I want to the be the cause of that smile"

The whole video is just of her walking down a 2 lane road in the middle of what looks like a desert. People come in and out of the scene, but the camera stays out in front of her as she walks. Later in the video, the sky darkens and she's walking through a thunderstorm. Shortly thereafter, the light returns the sky. But through it all, she never stops walking. Her pace and forward movement are a constant throughout the video.

One gets the sense that the road is her life, and through it all (good times and bad), she kept walking. One has only to listen to "Jagged Little Pill" to know that Alanis has had her bitter moments. That album is filled with one bitterly disappointed and angry story after another (albeit told in a lyrically clever fashion).

On the surface, the song is about unconditional love (the unconditional love that her significant other shows for her). Unconditional love is not an idea I subscribe to, but I also don't usually enjoy a song on a purely surface level either. What I like about the song is the sense of profound enjoyment she takes in being fully understood an appreciated. ("And you've never met anyone, as everything as I am sometimes") That's a sentiment that I can personally get behind in a big way. It's very rare that I feel like someone really "gets" me. So this element really appeals to me. It's enhanced even more by the fact that the song itself is an expression of appreciation for her lover!

The constant movement in the video is something I respond to as well. I have an appreciation of images of undiminished progress, or intransigient forward motion. Pearl Jam has a song called Indifference which contains the following lyric: "I will hold the candle / til it burns up my arm / and I'll keep taking punches / til their will grows tired / I will stare the sun down /until my eyes go blind / and I won't change direction / and I won't change my mind." Mudvayne (the heaviest metal band I've ever loved) has an album cover that features a young boy standing in the midst of a violent tornado. The back cover features the same boy in exactly the same pose standing in bright sunlight. The storm has come and gone, but the boy is still there exactly as he was: constant, unaffected, undamaged. The band King's X has an album with an inner cover that features a vast desert expanse. The foreground focuses on the cobbled clay of a dried riverbed. In the midst of all this inhospitable emptiness, a single brilliantly colored dandelion is growing between the cobbles. Once again, the theme is the same: life succeding in the face of all obstacles.

The tone of "Everything" is generally very upbeat. Even though the song refers to some dark places, it refers to them in the sense of them being in the past and being over with. When Alanis does some vocal soloing at 3:00, it's a sound of unhurried and relaxed triumph. The victory isn't just about having found someone to appreciate her, it's also about achieving the self-confidence and maturity to be able to appreciate and enjoy that, and to trust in it without suspicion or self-doubt. It's very difficult for me to relate the Alanis of "Everything" to the Alanis of "Jagged Little Pill." My congratulations to her for having reached a place where she could write a song such as "Everything."

There's one other thing that this video has highlighted for me. My drastic emotional shock at seing her face transform from ho-hum to radiantly beautiful at 0:35 has got me thinking about my own capacity for smiling. Smiling has always come rather difficult for me; not because I'm not happy; it's just that, as Ice Scribe put it, a frown is my screensaver. It sounds strange to say that I'm going to practice smiling, but that's exactly what I'm going to do. I'm going to try to make it feel more natural, and automatize it as a normal part of my self-expression. I figure my outside needs to match my inside and all that. Besides, maybe some smart, geeky, Objectivist woman will have a reaction to my smile similar to that I had to Alanis'.

$

Fun

Rube Goldberg machines have always fascinated me. Noodlefood has posted a link to a 13 minute video showing some really great machines.

Here it is.

Food for Thought

I was reading this article and came across this passage:

“Today, Iran’s army is one of the most powerful armies in the world and it
will powerfully defend the country’s political borders and the nation,”
Ahmadinejad said in a brief speech before troops and missiles took part in an
annual parade.
“It will cut off the hands of any aggressors and will make any
aggressor regret it,” he said.
Ahmadinejad took the salute of thousands of
army, navy and air force troops. Battle tanks were towed past on trucks, while
helicopters and Russian-built warplanes flew in formation overhead. Parachutists
sailed down from the sky.

Why is it that you see all these 2nd and 3rd word countries having political parades that show off their missles? Our parades show of girls in skimpy clothes, happy music, and silly floats! Every now and then there's an air show where the Navy Blue Angels perform, and some other military equipment is shown off; but these are not political occasions paraded through the streets. What kind of politician feels engrandeured by the presence of missles and tanks?

Just something to think about...

Anyone know...

Where I can find a T-Shirt with the Danish Cartoons on it? I'd like to have one with a caption something like "Freedom of Speech is more important than sensitivity."

An Interesting Short Story by Dan Simmons

... can be found here.

It deals with the topic of the ever-growing conflict with the Islamic world. It also touches on the topic of how to fight a war, which is a topic covered very well in John Lewis' Defensor Patriae. I credit this lecture with single-handedly cutting through all the propoganda on war I've been bombarded with my entire life.

If you don't know the moral purpose of war, or can't understand why the Geneva Convention and concepts such as a "compassionate war" are self-destructive to any nation, or if the idea dropping a nuclear weapon on an enemy nation first fills you with all sorts of moral trepidation, or if you belive in the concept of "innocent civilians" in an enemy country, you need to listen to this lecture.

--Hat Tip NoodleFood

Bausch & Lomb...

... has a pretty poor reputation right now. From what I had read in the press before yesterday, it seemed a virtual certainty that Renu had been linked with a fungal eye infection. According to this article the link is based on "reports" of 109 cases of Fusarium keratitis. The FDA has interviewed 30 of those patients, "However, of the 28 who wore soft contact lens, 26 reported using Bausch & Lomb’s ReNu brand contact lens solution or a generic type of solution also made by the Rochester, N.Y., company." I didn't spend a huge amount of time searching, but I couldn't really find a more detailed explanation than that. If someone has one, I'd be interested in reading it.

But about these reports, did they also report wearing a red shirt any time in the last 6 months? This is a very weak link. I'm not saying that we should ignore it, or even that Bausch & Lomb should have acted differently. However, there's not really much evidence of any link yet, so there's no reason to panic. I watched a girl in my class terrify herself into near hysteria because her eye started to itch, and she's "been using that brand in the news."

I have a buddy that works QA at B&L, so when I saw him last night I asked him about the whole affair. Apparently, he's been working very hard recently as the FDA has been investigating the QA process for the last 3 or 4 weeks. They're down to asking what kind of glue was used to put the box together. That doesn't sound to me like they've been able to find anything of any substance to link Renu to these fungal cases.

There is a valid reason to watch the story and to discontinue use of the product. B&L has acted very responsibly so far. But it is far from a certainty that B&L has anything to do with the problem. It's not even very probable at this point. From everything I know on the subject now, I doubt that B&L will be found to be actual source of the problem. Still, it's possible, and I'll be watching to find out if I'm right.

The Flying Spaghetti Monster Strikes Again!

http://www.kansas.com/mld/kansas/living/education/14331100.htm

A Song by Frou Frou

Here's a song by Frou Frou called "Breath In."

Video Code provided by VideoCodeZone.Com

Latest Favorite Song

Last month I heard "Hide and Seek" by Imogen Heap for the first time. I bought her album "Speak for Yourself" and listened to it non-stop for weeks, interrupted only by another album by a band that Imogen Heap was a part of called "Frou Frou." "Hide and Seek" is not representative of Imogen Heap's music, generally. It is a semi-a-capella piece in which she feeds her singing voice through her synthesizer and is able to harmonize with herself in real time.

Video provided by VideoCodeZone.Com

Random

So that commercial came on tonight-- you know the one--the guy is pulling the girl out into the courtyard. He tells her how much he loves her, and that he thinks he could marry her again, with all these people as witnesses... "Yeah right," she says. Then her parents and friends reveal their faces, previously hidden behind newspapers. He says, "So will you marry me, again?"

Commercial fades with message: "Buy Diamonds!"

So it got me thinking about this whole second marriage to the same person thing. What if you're married to someone, and you ask them to marry you again, and they say "No!" ?

Man, don't you feel stupid.
$

Out of the mouths of babes

I'm no fan of the DEA, so this video is especially funny to me. There were two things that struck me while watching it: the first is that after the DEA agent shoots himself and reaches for another gun, no adult objected. The second thing is that the children told him to "put it down." Go kids!

Jeez! Now the agent is complaining because his career is ruined, to which I have one comment: to quote Michael Palin in "A Fish Called Wanda," Good!

The Responsibility Argument Against Abortion

There are two major arguments that the so-called "pro-life" crowd use against abortion. The first is the "fetus is a life" argument, which I will not deal with here except to say it doesn't matter if it is or isn't: it's the mother's body. No one, born or unborn, has the right to tell another adult human being what to do with their own body.

The second is the argument from responsibility and it goes something like: "They knew that pregnancy is a possible consequence of sex, therefore they should take responsibility and have the child."

From wikipedia: "The word responsibility means the obligation to answer for actions. Often this means answering to authority. Responsibility is also loosely used as the recognition that in order to achieve one's purposes, one must act oneself ("take responsibility") rather than expecting others to do something (compare initiative)."

The answer to this argument is simple: having an abortion is taking responsibility. Condemning oneself to raising a child one doesn't want is irresponsible and destructive, both to one's self and to the child!

This is the same argument that is used to tell men that they have to care a for a child they fathered even if they made it clear from the very beginning that they didn't want children. If a woman chooses to have a child when the father has made it clear that he does not want to be responsible for one, then she should be the one responsible for the child's care. If she has the child on the understanding that the father will help raise it (i.e., he is aware she is pregnant, and has committed to helping financially and otherwise) then he does not get to change his mind later. Neither does she for that matter. It's a contract!

In today's legal climate, men don't have any choice in the matter whatever. If they dare to have sex with a woman, they are taking the chance that she will rope them into a lifetime of obligation that they may not want. The only choice we have is to make sure that we trust the rationality of the women we sleep with. There's nothing new there though. Men and women should be doing that anyway.

Kissin' Cousins

Always on the lookout for something else I've been lied to about, apparently "Kissin' Cousins" ain't so bad after all. I'm not saying I'm running to a family reunion or anything (blech!), but it's always interesting how far from the truth "conventional wisdom" can be.

Given the inaccuracy of "common sense" or "conventional wisdom," I'm frankly surprised that so many people rely on it. Of course, they also rely on "faith," so perhaps I shouldn't be so surprised. Ahh, now I see the common denominator: they are both a means of substituting someone else's thinking for your own; they are both a shortcut to rational thought.

Hmmm.

I think conventional wisdom can be right--but one still has to evaluate it rationally. 40 million frenchmen can be wrong.

On Which Sci-Fi Show Would You Feel Most At Home

You scored as Nebuchadnezzar (The Matrix). You can change the world around you. You have a strong will and a high technical aptitude. Is it possible you are the one? Now if only Agent Smith would quit beating up your friends. Nebuchadnezzar (The Matrix) 100% Serenity (Firefly) 75% Moya (Farscape) 75% Millennium Falcon (Star Wars) 63% SG-1 (Stargate) 63% Babylon 5 (Babylon 5) 44% Enterprise D (Star Trek) 44% Andromeda Ascendant (Andromeda) 38% Galactica (Battlestar: Galactica) 31% Deep Space Nine (Star Trek) 31% Bebop (Cowboy Bebop) 25% FBI's X-Files Division (The X-Files) 25% Your Ultimate Sci-Fi Profile II: which sci-fi crew would you best fit in? (pics) created with QuizFarm.com

In Defense of Mr. Darcy

For my British Lit class I had to read Pride and Prejudice by Jane Austen. This has become one of new favorite novels. I did a paper on Mr. Darcy for class which I turned in this evening. I'm posting it here because I like Mr. Darcy, and I like my paper. It does contain spoilers, however; so if you have not read the novel, you should skip this post until you have.


In Defense of Mr. Darcy
In Jane Austen’s novel Pride and Prejudice, the character of Mr. Darcy cannot be correctly understood until late in the story. Austen describes Mr. Darcy almost exclusively through the eyes of Elizabeth Bennet and her circle of friends. This indirect characterization of Mr. Darcy makes the reader complicit in Elizabeth Bennet’s faulty judgment of him. Mr. Darcy is first and foremost a gentleman of character and honor. He suffers from a social shyness and awkwardness that is received by others as rudeness. He undergoes a change in the novel in which he learns to be more polite in social settings. Mr. Darcy is aware that he does not always come across well in social situations, and entreats Elizabeth to “not to sketch my character at the present moment, as there is reason to fear that the performance would reflect no credit” (Austen 54). In keeping with Darcy’s wish, now that time enough has passed to get to know him, his true character will be examined.
The narrator of Pride and Prejudice is unreliable as a source of objective information about Darcy. In the first introduction to Mr. Darcy, the narrator reports “he was discovered to be proud, to be above his company, and above being pleased” (Austen 7). The narrator is not saying this as a fact about Mr. Darcy, but as a fact about what the other people at the dinner party thought about Mr. Darcy. Jane Austen is being somewhat tricky here by allowing the reader to accept as fact what others have judged based on superficial interaction with him. Mrs. Bennet concludes that Mr. Darcy is “a most disagreeable, horrid man, not at all worth pleasing” (Austen 9) and “he is ate up with Pride” (Austen 12). Elizabeth interprets each social failing of Mr. Darcy’s as yet more evidence of his general contempt for others. The narrator does give small clues that perhaps all may not be as it seems with Mr. Darcy such a when Jane says “he never speaks much unless among his intimate acquaintance. With them he is remarkably agreeable” (Austen 12). However, these clues are few and far between, and weak in contrast to the landslide consensus that Mr. Darcy is a proud, disagreeable man, and do little to offer a counter-argument. If the reader should begin to like Darcy as he begins to have feelings for Elizabeth, this emotion is frustrated by Wickham’s tale of mistreatment at Darcy’s hands (Austen 46), and thus Darcy’s character appears to be as bad as his manners. In this manner, Austen deftly prevents the reader from having an objective picture of Darcy’s character.
Mr. Darcy’s true character is far from what the reader is led to believe in the first portion of the novel. He considers himself a gentleman. For him, this means having a ruthless sense of honesty, of personal responsibility, and withstanding moral judgment. Darcy shows how important honesty is to him several times throughout the novel. For Darcy, “disguise of every sort is my abhorrence” (Austen 107). Miss Bingley’s attempts at raising her esteem in Darcy’s eyes by putting Elizabeth down draws harsh criticism from Darcy: “There is meanness in all the arts which ladies sometimes condescend to employ for captivation. Whatever bears affinity to cunning is despicable” (Austen 24). Further, Darcy admits to Bingley that he had kept from him Jane’s presence in London. This could in no way reflect positively on Darcy, but his sense of honor demanded that he be honest (Austen 203).
His sense of personal responsibility is evident in the way that he responds to the crisis brought about my Lydia’s elopement with Wickham. Since he had not made Wickham’s character known to the public before, he felt responsible for what Wickham had done (Austen 175). Out of this sense of responsibility, he paid off Wickham’s debts in order to get Wickham to marry Lydia. No one but Darcy felt he had any role in Wickham’s dishonesty. Another example of Darcy’s personal responsibility is apparent in the way he deals with the relationship with Bingley and Jane. He believes that Jane does not feel much affection for Bingley, and convinces Bingley to quit his pursuit of Jane; but when Elizabeth makes clear to Darcy the depth of Jane’s feelings for Bingley (Austen, 106), he recognizes his mistake and acts to correct it. Joseph Wiesenfarth in “The Errand of For: An Assay of Jane Austen’s Art” observes “he sees to it that Bingley returns to Netherfield and consequently to Jane” (Wiesenfarth).
Darcy’s sense of moral judgment is severe. Once he concludes that he has been morally wronged by someone, his sense of justice will not allow him to “forgive and forget.” Elizabeth challenges him on this point. She wishes to know if he is as cautious in making his judgment as he is severe in keeping it. He affirms that he is, and the reader can see that a few paragraphs later when Elizabeth insults his character on the basis of the lies that Wickham has told her. The narrator, in one of the few insights into Darcy’s internal life, tells the reader of “a tolerable powerful feeling towards her, which soon procured her pardon, and directed all his anger against another” (Austen 54).. Darcy recognizes that Wickham has misled Elizabeth and sees past his immediate anger at her insults and directs it instead toward Wickham.
If Mr. Darcy is in fact a gentleman of such virtue, it remains to be explained why Elizabeth Bennet and others see him as being so proud and disagreeable. In part, this image of Darcy is justified. Darcy himself admits “I was given good principles, but left to follow them in pride and conceit” (Austen 202). Even so, this does not suffice as a full explanation of his initial unpopularity. What then are the other components?
The key to understanding Darcy lies in his social awkwardness. Jane had earlier alluded to his amiability with his close friends; but he appears shy, and unable to express himself well with people he does not know. He is often unable to think of anything to say. At the Nertherfield ball, Darcy asks Elizabeth to dance. His silence is so exasperating to Elizabeth that “after a pause of some minutes” Elizabeth is obliged to comment “It is your turn to say something now, Mr. Darcy” (Austen 52). Elizabeth does not interpret his silence as shyness however. Marcia McClintock Folsom observes in “Pride and Prejudice: Past, Present, Future” that “Her comment is intended as a reproach to him for what she thinks is his failure to meet the requirements of common civility” (Folsom). Darcy’s poor communication skills are also apparent when he attempts to compliment Elizabeth on her enjoyment of reading. He offers as a description of an ideal kind of lady the virtues that he sees in Elizabeth. His comments are so vague and general however, that what Elizabeth hears is a description of such high standards that no one could match them (Austen 28).
Mr. Darcy undergoes a significant change throughout the novel, and his pride is part of what drives the change. He is aware that he does not come across well to many people at first, but he is not aware of how offensive he actually is to other people. Even during his proposal to Elizabeth, while he is insulting her and her family, he fully expects her to accept his proposal (Austen 104-108). His pride in his stature as a gentleman blinds him how others see him. Elizabeth’s rejection is a devastating shock. In particular he is struck by Elizabeth’s statement that he had not “behaved in a … gentleman-like manner” (Austen 107). “She saw him start at this, but he said nothing.” Mr. Darcy’s own statement on this scene bears special attention:
“The recollection of what I then said, of my conduct, my manners, my expressions during the whole of it, is now, and has been [for] many months, inexpressibly painful to me. Your reproof, so well applied, I shall never forget: ‘had you behaved in a more gentleman-like manner.’ Those were your words. You know not, you can scarcely conceive, how they have tortured me” (Austen 201).
Elizabeth’s statement was a slap in the face that awoke him to how egregiously he had betrayed his ideals. He was deeply ashamed. That he had not felt this shame before shows that he had not been aware that people saw him in this light. His desire to be a gentleman—his own sense of virtue and honor—drives him to give full attention to his public manners. The reader first sees this change in him when Elizabeth visits Pemberley. As Dvora Zlicovoci noted in “Reversal in Pride and Prejudice” “The great courtesy, warm hospitality, and attentions showered on Elizabeth and the Gardiners are clear evidence that Darcy has taken to heart Elizabeth's strictures regarding his presumptuous, ungentleman-like behavior” (Zlicovoci).
Mr. Darcy spends the first two-thirds of Jane Austen’s Pride and Prejudice being maligned by practically everyone. To be sure, his own rudeness encourages and justifies some of the criticisms levied against him. However, the conclusion that he is not a gentleman is unfair. His rudeness is largely unknown to him and is in part a consequence of his shyness with people he does not know well. When his collision with Elizabeth Bennet reveals it to him, he sets out immediately to change, and he succeeds. This dichotomy between his actual character and his personal rudeness drives Elizabeth Bennet’s, and the reader’s, prejudice against him. The unreliable narration leaves the reader at the mercy of Elizabeth Bennet’s judgment of Mr. Darcy, thus making the reader complicit in her prejudice. When Darcy’s true character is revealed, the result is that the reader feels some of the shame of misjudging Mr. Darcy, thereby granting emotional reality to part of Jane Austen’s theme.

Works Cited
Austen, Jane. Pride and Prejudice. New York: W. W. Norton & Company Inc., 2001.

McClintock, Marcia. “Pride and prejudice: past, present, future.” Persuasions: The Jane Austen Journal 22 (2000); 115. Literature Resource Center. Gale. Spartanburg Technical Coll. Lib. Discus. 6 February 2006.

Wiesenfarth, Joseph. “The Plot of Pride and Prejudice.” The Errand of Form: An Assay of Jane Austen’s Art; 60-85. Literature Resource Center. Gale. Spartanburg Technical Coll. Lib. Discus. 6 February 2006.

Zelicovici, Dvora. “Reversal in Pride and Prejudice.” Studies in the Humanities Journal 12, no. 2; 106-14. Literature Resource Center. Gale. Spartanburg Technical Coll. Lib. Discus. December 1984.