Is anybody out there?
link

It is often easy for me to imagine that no one is reading the material I post here. I'm not that smart or clever. At my best I am mildly amusing. I don't have the deep knowledge of a variety of subjects that would make breathless reading for a host of loyal readers. I know I have 3 regulars. Two are a married couple I know personally. One is Howard at the Smedley Log (who has been very kind in linking to my posts on several occasions). That is a pretty small circle of regulars. But, weird things happen. I discovered recently that one of my articles was linked by a substance abuse treatment database. Steven Den Beste regularly posts bizarre search strings which he finds in his refers which have led people to his site. On Christmas Day he discovered this one: "will+i+go+to+hell+if+i+have+sex+outside+of+marriage". Just a tad strange for a site devoted to anime.

The point is that no matter how alone in the blogosphere I think I am, I still have the sense to avoid writing things I don't want anyone to know about. So, boys and girls, without further ado comes today's cautionary tale from the Orlando Sentinel (Via the Register)

"I did it."

Blake Ranking was a Eustis High School senior and still aching from a horrible crash three days earlier when he posted those words on blurty.com, a site for Web logs.

Mr. Ranking was drunk, in the back seat of a car when he reached up and yanked on the steering wheel causing the car to crash, eventually killing one of his friends and severely injuring the driver. Now, based in part on his blog confession, Mr. Ranking has had to plead guilty to DUI Manslaughter.

Two things:

1. If in doubt, don't confess to a crime on your blog.

2. Who puts their blog on a site called "blurty"?

by Cziltang 
Posted: Thursday, December 29 2005 07:49:55 PM

? (#1)
link

When you say "meow" to a cat, does it wonder why you have a funny accent?

by Cziltang 
Posted: Sunday, December 25 2005 09:21:57 PM

Adventures in Shopping
link

Rat, Jr. and I just got home from an excursion to the Capitalist Great Satan*. I was pleasantly surprised to find parking spaces on the outside, and no lines on the inside (although the girl at the register assured me it will be a madhouse by closing time at 6:00 PM). While I have never been accused of being a pro-active Christmas shopper, I am happy to say that I was primarily on a mission to acquire supplies for the Ratlands Annual Holiday Cheese Smoking Festival, and the little bit of last-minute shopping I did was concluded without incident.

Between the festivities at Grandma's house and me being on call at work, I rather expect not to be posting for a couple of days. So, I leave you with the following greetings that I received in my e-mail yesterday. (Feel free to pick the one that suits you.)

For My Democratic Friends: (BOTH OF YOU)

"Please accept with no obligation, implied or implicit, my best wishes for an environmentally conscious, socially responsible, low-stress, non-addictive, gender-neutral celebration of the winter solstice holiday, practiced within the most enjoyable traditions of the religious persuasion of your choice, or secular practices of your choice, with respect for the religious/secular persuasion and/or traditions of others, or their choice not to practice religious or secular traditions at all. I also wish you a fiscally successful, personally fulfilling and medically uncomplicated recognition of the onset of the generally accepted calendar year 2006, but not without due respect for the calendars of choice of other cultures whose contributions to society have helped make America great. Not to imply that America is necessarily greater than any other country nor the only America in the Western Hemisphere. And without regard to the race, creed, color, age, physical ability, religious faith or sexual preference of the wishes. By accepting these greetings you are accepting these terms. This greeting is subject to clarification or withdrawal. It is freely transferable with no alteration to the original greeting. It implies no promise by the wisher to actually implement any of the wishes for herself or himself or others, and is void where prohibited by law and is revocable at the sole discretion of the wisher. This wish is warranted to perform as expected within the usual application of good tidings for a period of one year or until the issuance of a subsequent holiday greeting, whichever comes first, and warranty is limited to replacement of this wish or issuance of a new wish at the sole discretion of the wisher."

For My Republican Friends:

Here's wishing all of You a Merry Christmas and a Happy New Year

*Wal-Mart

by Cziltang 
Posted: Saturday, December 24 2005 11:54:58 AM

Conversations at the Starbucks Drive-thru
link

Female Employee at the Window: (as I put money in the tip jar) Thanks. We really appreciate it.

Me: Well, y'all are entirely too cheerful, but I guess we'll let it slide today.

Female Employee at the Window: Hmmmm. Must be all the crack we've been smoking in the back room.

by Cziltang 
Posted: Saturday, December 24 2005 11:38:39 AM

...yeah, but we're the center of the World
link

One can find a variety of reasons to be embarrassed about being a Kansan, and non-Kansans are certainly not at a loss to point out more, but I think maybe y'all ought to back off a bit. Over the course of my life, I've often wondered why it is that the basically decent people here do such stupid things on occasion. And now I know. It's the pressure. It is tough to be the center of the world.

by Cziltang 
Posted: Wednesday, December 21 2005 07:41:37 PM

Polar Bears and Human Arrogance
link

(And Trust, me this isn't what you think)

Don't you just love Polar Bears? They are just so damn cute and cuddly in those Coke commercials, aren't they? Of course, they aren't so cute when they are ripping a seal to shreds, but we rarely see that. (Personally, I think the newest Coke commercial would be really good television if the polar bear family mauled a few of those disgustingly cute penguins, but that wouldn't leave us feeling all warm and fuzzy and brotherhoody and might put us off buying Coke.) And, I don't know about cute, but they make really cuddly rugs (I got a chance to lay on one once). But seriously, I really do like polar bears. And all anthropomorphism aside, they are interesting and majestic creatures and they remind us of harsh, wild places. It is unfortunate that some polar bears are in trouble.

The Arctic ice cap is receding. Polar bears live on the Arctic sea ice. Polar bears do everything on the sea ice. They hunt for ringed seals from the ice. They mate on the ice. They raise their young on the ice. They use the ice floes for travel. If they get off the ice too far and they can't swim back, they become exhausted and drown. This appears to be happening more frequently. So basically it is simple: less sea ice equals bad news for polar bears.

Why is the sea ice receding? Environmentalists will tell you it is because of global warming. And global warming is caused by the particulate matter and gases that we put in the air as byproducts of our industry and vehicles. They will tell you that man-made global warming is a proven fact. They will tell you our temperatures have been rising. They will tell you 2005 was the warmest year on record. And they will tell you that the Arctic ice cap is shrinking because of man-made global warming and therefore it is our fault and consequently, the drowned polar bears are also our fault.

Because this is all our fault, they are trying to get polar bears classified as an endangered species. If polar bears are an endangered species our law says we must protect them. The only way to protect them would be to stop man-made global warming. The only way to stop man-made global warming is to curtail our industry and our lifestyles. The environmentalists will finally have the legal means to shut down the modern industry they find so objectionable, force the changes in our lifestyles they have been clamoring for, and the means to make the world a cleaner, healthier, happier place. It will be just like now only better. And we can save all those cute cuddly animals like polar bears we love so much. It will be a place where we can restore the natural balance and live in harmony with nature.

And that, my friends is the key to the hubris and the error and the systemic dishonesty of the environmental movement.

The problem with the environmental movement is that although it masquerades as scientific, it is fundamentally emotional. It is based on the utopian premises that A) what we have now is the way it is supposed to be (only we need to make it cleaner) and B) we need to keep it from changing. The hubris involved in making the emotional decision that the critters and environment we have now must be maintained and then pretending that this is in some way "natural" is truly astonishing.

Telling the difference between science and emotion is difficult. Take the concept of biodiversity. The benefits of biodiversity are demonstrable. The pitfalls of the lack of biodiversity (e.g. the dangers of monoculture farming, etc.) can be documented. This is science. The idea that the current set of flora and fauna must be maintained without change is pure emotion, not to mention arrogant. Reduced to a fundamental level the argument is: Nature should be left to maintain its own balance - as long as we like it.

GIGO. Garbage in; Garbage out. If you base your analytical process on garbage data your conclusions will be garbage. Unfortunately, that's not the only way to get garbage. Selectively inputing good data also renders the output garbage. With that in mind, let's talk about man-made global warming. There are mountains of valid, empirical data on climate out there. Most of the data is good science. But the output is still garbage.

What leads me to that conclusion? Unlike most of the individuals in the environmental movement, I am unwilling to ignore relatively obvious, but in most ways, non-quantitative data that is readily available regarding the earth's climate. For example, the data tells us that 2005 was the hottest year on record. I don't have a problem with that. I'm sure the data is good. I'm pretty sure the statement is true. But what does that really tell us? It tells us that this was the hottest year since 1861. Nothing more. Why 1861? Because that's as far back as generally reliable records go. And what does that mean? It means systematic temperature observations were being made with reasonably reliable equipment and being recorded. The key is that the measurements were quantifiable. Numbers. Precise integer measurements. Before that time climatological measurements were less sophisticated and tended to be more of a secondary nature. Things like: "We can sail this strait that used to stay frozen all year long" or "Most of our people died because it was too cold to grow our food crops". There is a wealth of this less sophisticated data available.

Why does it get ignored? The easiest answer? It does not lend itself to sophisticated data manipulation. It is hard to run a factor analysis on "it was so cold half the villagers died". It simply does not lend itself to the complex analyses and meta-analyses that are possible with massive computing power and that get you published in scholarly journals.The conspiracy oriented answer? It is not convenient. It suggests that the complex analyses are garbage and doesn't fit with the correct political agenda of a good environmentalist.

So, 2005 was the hottest year on record. Let's take a look at that. The statement implies that our climate has been trending warmer, culminating in the most recent past. This is true. It has been getting generally warmer since the 1800's. However, the statement also implies that this is due to man's industrial activity. Environmentalists will point to increased industrial activity and increasing temperatures as proof that we are causing global warming. But just because two things happen at the same time, it does not necessarily require that one caused the other. It is simply convenient for the environmental agenda to assume causality. Unfortunately, this ignores the fact that it was much warmer at other times in the past.

Historically: "Western Europe experienced a general cooling of the climate between the years 1150 and 1460 and a very cold climate between 1560 and 1850 that brought dire consequences to its peoples." How warm? Well, this information is not specifically quantifiable. But, we know that "in the warmest times of the last 1000 years, southern England had the climate that northern France has now." And we know that prior to the 1300's there was a significant wine industry in England which subsequently died out as the climate cooled and that it was possible to grow cereal grains for food in Iceland prior to the 1300's.

The point is that any talk about 2005 being the hottest year on record, while true, is a classic example of lying with facts. When the English wine industry has been re-established and Iceland's production of cereal grains rivals its fishing as an economic activity, then you can talk to me about significant global warming. But, you still won't have demonstrated that global warming is specifically and solely the result of man's activities. Causality is a bitch.

Remember the polar bears? This is an essay about polar bears. I like polar bears. I'm sorry they are having a tough time of it right now. But, if a warmer climate means they will become extinct, and they have been around for thousands upon thousands of years (large stretches of which have been significantly warmer than it is right now) how come they are still here? Shouldn't they have died out during the warmer period before the 1300's? In that light, we humans deciding they are "endangered" seems just a wee bit arrogant, doesn't it?

 

by Cziltang 
Posted: Sunday, December 18 2005 01:19:49 AM

A funny thing happened on the way to the pithy commentary
link

I started working on an essay this evening, but somewhere along the line I decided I needed to download Google Earth. I am at least marginally annoyed to report that I was able to pick out my pickup in front of our apartment. I'm not sure whether I think that is cool or not. Anyway, no essay tonight, as I'm still playing with the satellite pictures. (If you are an English Football fan, it is kind of fun to pick out Fratton Park in Portsmouth.)

by Cziltang 
Posted: Saturday, December 17 2005 01:36:31 AM

Because you really, really need to know
link

The thoughtful lads at Something Wrong have added some really festive holiday touches. This may explain why the Crazy Frog has now been killed 11.35 million times. (Or, it might have something to do with the big red button.)

by Cziltang 
Posted: Wednesday, December 14 2005 11:27:20 PM

Awkward
link

I know that "Onomatopoeia" is a word that imitates the sound it represents, like buzz and hiss and hum. Today I was editing one of Rat, Jr.'s short stories. I was explaining to her that I thought one of her sentences was a bit awkward. It struck me that the word "awkward" is, well, awkward. Is there a name for words whose existence seems to be what they describe?

by Cziltang 
Posted: Sunday, December 11 2005 09:33:26 PM

Go with what you know
link

James Lileks on why Entertainment Weekly has "Brokeback Mountain" on the cover this week instead of "Narnia":

"...And that's the sense that I got from the EW issue - not that you MUST see "Brokeback" to prove you're not homophobic, but that you should, because it's helpful. In some vague sense. Seeing Narnia is not necessarily unhelpful, but it gives off those Bible-y Christy vibes somehow, and while that's fine, we must encourage movies about cowboys in love, because somewhere in some small town a gay youth looks at the box office grosses, and decides to stay in the closet out of fear he will be eaten by a computer generated lion who manifests the stigmata. Or something like that."

by Cziltang 
Posted: Thursday, December 08 2005 10:26:39 AM

Pulling out early
link

This, from Sgt. Trevor Snyder, currently in Iraq:

I watched Bush speaking on television last night. It was my first day off since arriving in theater one month ago.

Please, America, listen to the man.

The moment anyone puts a timetable on coalition forces leaving, we’ve lost the war. You can’t put a timetable on the good guys unless you can put one on the bad guys too. That’s ridiculous. You can’t put an exact timetable on training up the new Iraqi military and police forces. It would be irresponsible.

No one wants American troops to keep dying in Iraq and Afghanistan. I know, because I’m one of those troops and I would prefer not to die here. On the other hand, and this is what you won’t hear from most mainstream media, if I do die over here, I’ll do so with few regrets. I wouldn’t be dying for a lie, as so many minstrels of misery and mischief keep spouting.

and...

It’s sad that so many Iraqis and others are dying over here. However, when you discover you have cancer the treatment is always the same - attack it at the source. You don’t wait for it to spread. And when is the last time you heard a doctor putting a limited timetable on cancer therapy? I can picture it in my mind. “Mr. Smith, we have seen some progress with your tumor. It’s shrinking. But we need to move on now. The timetable for treating you has passed. Good luck.”

There are a couple more paragraphs, and all worth reading. And you might want to check out some of his previous entries.

by Cziltang 
Posted: Thursday, December 01 2005 11:55:06 PM