Christmas in May
link

I had a couple of things I wanted to write about this evening. But, discretion being the better part of valor, I've altered my plans. Instead of writing brilliant social and political commentary, I'm going to be hanging out with the Head Rat. I recently ordered her the complete set of Firefly episodes as a surprise. They were delivered today.

Who says I'm not a romantic at heart?

by Cziltang 
Posted: Tuesday, May 30 2006 08:21:28 PM

G.A.R.
link

One of my readers asked me what the G.A.R. on the flag holder in Sunday's post stood for. My answer to him was not quite correct. GAR stands for Grand Army of the Republic. The GAR was formed after the Civil War and was open to honorably discharged Union soldiers. The GAR "...founded soldiers' homes, was active in relief work and in pension legislation. Five members were elected President of the United States and, for a time, it was impossible to be nominated on the Republican ticket without the endorsement of the GAR voting block."

The description sounds a lot like the VFW, which, in turn grew out of organizations similar to the GAR which were formed after the Spanish-American War and the Philippine Insurrection. By it's nature, the GAR was self-limiting: "The final Encampment of the Grand Army of the Republic was held in Indianapolis, Indiana in 1949 and the last member, Albert Woolson died in 1956 at the age of 109 years."

(Anyway, sorry for the misinformation, Ken. Like I said before, I am, at best, a dilettante when it comes to history.)

by Cziltang 
Posted: Tuesday, May 30 2006 07:33:37 PM

The Price of a Whim
link

People who have never been to Kansas sometimes have the impression that it is as flat as a pancake. (Among other things. In 1974 when my scout troop was on the way to Philmont, we ran into a troop from the Bronx in Dodge City, most of whom wouldn't get off the bus because they thought the Indians would get them.) On the way home yesterday, I stopped by the side of the road to take a picture from one of my favorite places in the Flint Hills. It didn't turn out too well. It was kind of hazy, so it's hard to tell how far the horizon is (well over ten miles) and the digital camera didn't do justice to the green of the grass. Since I fell on the embankment at the side of the road and sprained an ankle and twisted a knee, it probably wasn't worth it, but still, here it is.

by Cziltang 
Posted: Monday, May 29 2006 04:35:14 PM

Memorial Day Pilgrimage
link

We made our Memorial Day Pilgrimage to the family graves today. I took pictures and notes. My parents are in their late 70's. One never knows how many more times they will be around to do this. Given that my sister lives in Nebraska, responsibility for decorating the graves will fall to me when my parents can no longer do it. My sister and I are the last of both branches of our families (my mother's sister never married and my father was an only child). There are distant cousins around, but no one left in our particular branches.

The patriarch of my father's family packed up and left Indiana and came to Kansas in 1874, where he homesteaded along with several members of his family. He is buried in this cemetery.

Notice all the flags for veterans.

The holders for the flags all look like this:

Every one of the veterans in this little cemetery was a Union soldier in the Civil War.

A couple of miles away from the cemetery is this:

I'm sure there are other low-water fords around, but this is the only one I know of in Kansas.

The people who settled in this part of Kansas were practical people. The people I descended from generally said what they meant and didn't use $10 words when ten cent words would do. I grew up calling this holiday "Decoration Day." It was what my grandparents called it and it made sense to me since that's what it was; the day we decorated the graves. Folks in these parts still call it Decoration Day:

 

by Cziltang 
Posted: Sunday, May 28 2006 11:01:09 PM

The Friday Night, Just Because I Felt Like It, and Besides, it's my Blog and I Can Do What I Want, Humor Roundup
link

The Sabres were losing and NUMB3RS is a re-run, so I've been running through some of my bookmarks looking for worthy posts to recommend.

From ecoEnquirer, Solar Power Plant Construction Halted Due to Endangered Squirrel:

"This has caused unspeakable turmoil in the environmental community", lamented Rainbow Treetower, spokesperson for the local Falls Canyon chapter of the Save Our Earth Society. She noted that one female environmentalist was seriously injured during an altercation over the issue when a male associate tried to choke her by entangling her in a large dream catcher.

From Planet Moron, Denny and Nancy sitting in a tree…

In these highly partisan times it takes a lot to bring House Speaker Denny Hastert and Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi together, but the issues surrounding the FBI raid on Representative William Jefferson’s Congressional offices struck a nerve by undermining two vitally important Constitutional principles:

1. The separation of powers among the various branches of government.

2. The separation of Congressmen from the various branches of the federal prison system.

From Potfry, Ask PETA! (Questions submitted to the Ask PETA web page)

3) My friend and I have a bet. He says that a goldfish will survive the puree setting on the blender, and I think it won’t. I need to win this one because I lost the "cats always land on their feet" bet. Anyway, we’re going to do a series of tests at each blender setting. Any idea where we can get some cheap goldfish?

From the Onion, Columbia House Launches Subscription Meds Program

"This is the best way to enjoy all the top medications by today's pharmaceutical superstars at a low, low price," said Columbia House representative Sandra Farrell. "There's no more waiting in line for the latest releases at the pharmacy, and because Columbia House sells directly to the consumer, you can kiss Dr. Middleman goodbye."

And then there's this. I think they are serious. (3800 Yen is about $34)

CATPRIN, a tailor for cats. Ever imagined dressing up your lovely cat into a fabulous beauty? You don't have to dress her everyday, in fact she might not feel comfortable with a dress on for days. Just dress her up only on special occasions like her birthday, takes a photo and that should leave you lots of memories and fantasies.

No, really. You can buy costumes for your cat. Because any fantasies you have about your cat will be enhanced if they include costumes? From the "Frog" costume description:

A very cute and humorous package to transform your cat into a frog! Material are bright green felt with big eyes drawn, presenting a pop and cute impression. There is a flipper attached to the neck. These froggy looks surely make you laugh. Don't laugh too much or SHE might get sulky. :-) The hat and the neck ornament are velcrod and can be attached or detached easily.

And, from the list of Computer Laws at SYSPROG.Net I was reminded of Ellison's Law: The two most common elements in the universe are hydrogen and stupidity. (Harlan Ellison)

Update: On the "less funny than weird" front, I had intended to include a link to Roswell, Texas. This is a serialized internet comic (new episode on Fridays) about a world in which Davy Crockett survived the Alamo and Texas stayed independent.

by Cziltang 
Posted: Friday, May 26 2006 10:23:40 PM

Legal Briefs
link

I had an opportunity to go to the Courthouse today (something I try to avoid at all costs). I guess "opportunity" isn't quite the right word, as you get an "opportunity" to spend a night in jail for Contempt of Court when you ignore subpoenas. Before the hearing I was standing around in the hall outside the Judge's chambers waiting for the Assistant District Attorney to show up (and eventually tell me I wasn't needed for the hearing) like I used to do on a regular basis when I was an active probation officer. (I wonder what the total cumulative time I've spent waiting outside courtrooms comes up to. I'm guessing it probably comes up to months.)

Eventually, the ADA, who looked like he was about 10 minutes older than Rat Jr., showed up and let me know he didn't need me. In the mean time, I was noticing all the people I used to rub elbows with whose names I can't remember now. One whose name I do remember is one of the most powerful attorneys in town. I got caught between him and one of the best ADA's I've ever met in the first evidentiary hearing I ever testified in. They both worked me over pretty good. It's probably one of the reasons I have never liked being at the courthouse. Anyway, this guy has handled some of the highest profile cases in the state. He's one of those guys that just oozes self-confidence. He never hurries. He walks with what would be a strut, if anyone else did it, but it doesn't come across quite that way with him because he knows he is really that good and you know he is really that good and he knows you know he is really that good and it ain't bragging if you can really deliver. So he is wandering around the hall, waiting for a Judge to show up, with a wet spot on the front of his $1000 suit pants. Apparently he didn't quite finish all his work on his legal briefs.

by Cziltang 
Posted: Thursday, May 25 2006 11:19:50 PM

Signs of the Apocalypse, or something
link

I have been considering the possibility that I am delirious from the cumulative effect of hours of throbbing pain stemming from my root canal yesterday. But, after consulting with other members of the family here in the Ratlands, I have discounted that possibility and am moving on the my second explanation: the Apocalypse is nigh.

From today's LA Times, George McGovern (yes, THE George McGovern, lifelong liberal, former senator and presidential candidate, a man with whom I agree on almost nothing but for whom I have considerable respect) says:

Airlines have come under similar pressure. The bankruptcy stories associated with legacy carriers are driven in large part by the compensation packages and work rules that unions have won for their members, which are too expensive compared to more recent entrants such as Southwest. "More" has, unfortunately, become "too much" in a global and far more competitive economy.

(...)

Not unlike members of Congress, union leaders are in the business of asking for more. That's what their mentors and predecessors and heroes did. It's very difficult to turn around and say that "more" is not always possible.

It can be galling to hear companies argue that they have to cut wages and benefits for hourly workers — even as they reward top executives with millions of dollars in stock options. The chief executive of Wal-Mart earns $27 million a year, while the company's average worker takes home only about $10 an hour. But let's assume that the chief executive got 27 cents instead of $27 million, and that Wal-Mart distributed the savings to its hourly workers. They would each receive a bonus of less than $20. It's not executive pay that has created this new world.

I understand the attraction of asking business — the perceived "deep pockets" — to shoulder more of the responsibility for social welfare. But there are plenty of businesses that don't have deep pockets. And many large corporations operate with razor-thin profit margins as competitors, both foreign and domestic, strive to attract consumers by offering lower prices.

The current frenzy over Wal-Mart is instructive. Its size is unprecedented. Yet for all its billions in profit, it still amounts to less than four cents on the dollar. Raise the cost of employing people, and the company will eliminate jobs. Its business model only works on low prices, which require low labor costs. Whether that is fair or not is a debate for another time. It is instructive, however, that consumers continue to enjoy these low prices and that thousands of applicants continue to apply for those jobs.

I said similar things here about a year ago. (A post that was not, surprisingly, universally well received.) While I don't agree with his "solutions," and I probably disagree with what he thinks the problem is, I am pleasantly surprised that Mr. McGovern has (in my view) a solid grasp of what the problem isn't.

 

 

by Cziltang 
Posted: Wednesday, May 24 2006 05:54:05 PM

Adventures in Drilling
link

Paid another visit to the dentist today. It was supposed to be to fill a couple of cavities. Lying bastard.

One root canal later, with a lighter wallet and a promise that I get to have another one in a couple of weeks, I was out the door and on my way home. This was not the worst experience of my life. But I've noticed something. The whole root canal thing seemed a lot more like a good idea while I was getting the nitrous.

 

by Cziltang 
Posted: Tuesday, May 23 2006 07:49:49 PM

Well, isn't that special?
link

I do a lot of what might be loosely termed "logistics" at work. Or, you could just say that I'm in charge of getting supplies for the residential part of the facility. Because we have a fair number of indigent clients at any given time (it takes a while to get a job sometimes) we have to "hygiene supplies" on hand. Buying toothbrushes and soap in large quantities is just annoying (I think I've mentioned I don't like crowds or shopping). It gets a little weirder when we need tampons.

Now, buying tampons doesn't embarrass me. I've been married over 23 years. I have a daughter. Until just recently, I've done most of the shopping, so over the years I've bought plenty of feminine hygiene products. Granted, it is a bit different buying a dozen large boxes of tampons at a time, but it is still no big deal. The fun comes when you combine the tampons with other products on the shopping list. The strangest looks I ever got were on the day I bought a dozen boxes of tampons, 16 cans of coffee and 100 or so AA batteries. People would look at the cart, then look at me, then look away like they had just seen something they really needed to buy on the other side of the store (and yes, I do this at Wal-Mart). On this particular day, a very nice little old lady in line in front of me asked me if I ran a coffee shop.

I got to do something today that draws a reaction that is orders of magnitude above tampon shopping. My shopping list today was 6 dozen wash cloths, 15 cheap headphones, and every bottle of Lice Shampoo they had on the shelf. It was kind of like that line from Arlo Guthrie's Alice's Restaurant: "and they all moved away from me on the bench there..."

Days like today I don't even try to explain "the Great Body Livestock Outbreak of '06" or anything, I just try to keep my eyes not quite focused and when I talk to people I look just over their left shoulder as if I'm talking to someone standing there so they don't know if there is something wrong with my eyes or if I'm talking to an imaginary friend. That and I try to be cheerful and happy and gregarious because I'm not real good at it and it comes off as being not quite genuine.

I really shouldn't do stuff like that when I'm paying with a Government-issued credit card, but I get faster service.

by Cziltang 
Posted: Monday, May 22 2006 07:51:46 PM

Click it or Ticket
link

I've been seeing a series of "Public Service" commercials on TV about how police everywhere have the ability to give you a ticket for not wearing a seat belt. The one made here in Kansas even has an obviously earnest Highway Patrol officer saying "I'd rather see you mad than dead." Every time I see one of these infuriating pieces of crap I am reminded of all of the other things I do that someone, somewhere would like to prevent me from doing through some piece of Nanny State legislation.

Forget about whether seat belts are a good idea and whether or not they save lives in an accident. I will stipulate to all of that. That's not my point. My point is: Why is it against the law for me to choose not to wear one?

The usual answer runs something along the lines of, "It's for your own safety." (Which is exactly what the young officer says in the Kansas commercial.) I find that particularly annoying and unsatisfying. It is like telling me, "It's for your own good." Which, for all intents and purposes, is the functional equivalent of saying, "We know what's best for you," at which point you might as well say, "You can't be trusted to make good decisions," where "good" in this case (or any other case involving the regulation of my behavior to suit your standards) is defined as "what you think is good."

And the ugly truth is that you are right. There are a myriad of behaviors out there that are, at some level, objectively not "safe," "good," or "desirable" by someone's standards. All of these behaviors have consequences. The impulse to regulate these behaviors is, overtly, the impulse to protect people from those consequences.

Let's examine that for a minute. Suppose I think seatbelts are a good idea. Suppose I've seen the research (along with nearly every other sentient being in the western hemisphere). But as good an idea (speaking from a purely objective standpoint) as it is to wear seat belts, some people are still too lazy or stubborn to do the "right" thing and they won't wear them. I, in my infinite concern for my fellow man, really want people to wear seat belts. How do I get them to do it? How about Public Service announcements? Well, we tried that for several decades. It seems that some people just won't do what's best for them without the threat of legal coercion. (And, deep in my heart of hearts, maybe I suspect that I'm one of them?) So, basically the impulse to make other people wear seat belts by passing a law and having the police enforce it can be attributed to A) my own deep-seated fear that I won't do the right thing unless threatened by the authorities or B) my own deep-seated belief that my opinion in the matter is more important than anyone else's, or C) my own deep-seated desire to make myself feel better about myself by telling other people what to do?

All that aside, why is it anyone else's business whether I am protected from the possible consequences of my actions (or lack thereof). Forget the dynamics of the busybody desire to regulate other people's behaviour. Notice that if you look carefully you will find that my original question isn't answered by any of the standard rationale for seat belt laws. So, in a slightly more generic format here is my question again: "Why is it the business of the police to protect me from the possible consequences of my own decisions?"

(Before I go on, let me emphatically state that I have the utmost respect for almost every law enforcement officer I have ever met. Sure, there are a few bad/unethical/evil cops out there (just as there are bad/unethical/evil accountants, small business men, landscapers, doctors, or members of any other profession) but my experience has been that the vast majority are good people who are good at their job and genuinely want to make a difference. They do a job which is often extremely dangerous for a public which is regularly unappreciative and uncooperative and often downright hostile. And they keep on doing a good job in the face of all that. My point of contention with the cops is not with the way they do their jobs, it is with the way we, through our elected officials, define the scope of their jobs.)

Why is it the business of the police to protect me from the possible consequences of my own decisions?

A lot of law enforcement agencies have mottoes or mission statements that include some variation of the old standard "...to protect and serve". That is a noble, well-meant sentiment. It is just too bad that, by definition, it is something the police can't do. Oh, the "serve" part is fine, and law enforcement agencies do serve their communities. But we have a public perception that the police are here to protect us. It is vitally important for certain groups that this perception be maintained. They have a vested interest in maintaining the perception that the cops are here to protect us because there would be widespread consequences if the public did not believe they were being protected by the police (if you don't follow that line of thought, have a concealed carry proponent explain it to you.)

Unfortunately, the proposition that the police are here to protect us is one that can only in the most vague, general, abstract sense possibly be true. The existence of police officers and their general presence may deter some individuals from committing some crimes. But, think about it. Fraud. Theft. Burglary. Home Invasion. Carjacking. Assault. Kidnapping. Arson. Rape. Murder. How can a police office protect you from any of these? Only in the most fortuitous of circumstances can a police officer be in a position to prevent a crime and protect you from harm (either physical or financial).

The vast majority of the time, the only thing a cop can do is investigate (after the fact) and gather the evidence necessary for the crime to be prosecuted (theoretically in the hopes that the knowledge that crimes are prosecuted and punished will deter future crime). To that fact, add the unfortunate reality that many reported crimes are never solved or prosecuted. And, add the fact that a large amount of crime goes unreported. The distasteful conclusion is that only in the most abstract sense can the police protect you.

The odds that you, specifically, will be protected from any tangible harm by a police officer are infinitesimally small. (And please remember that I am not finding fault with the cops. This is just a feature of the particular reality we live in and the cops do what they can, given the particular constraints of this particular reality.) In other words, the crime prevention success rate is pretty abysmal.

But, just off the top of your head, think of an area where such an abysmal success rate doesn't matter.

How about seat belts? If an officer pulls you over and gives you a ticket for not wearing a seat belt he is protecting you from yourself. (The fact that he is generating revenue for a governmental entity is an issue for another time.) Should this (or the threat of this happening) induce you to wear your seat belt, you will probably be better off and will probably be less damaged should you ever be in an accident.

But what happens if the officer fails to prevent this "crime" and you get away with not wearing a seat belt? Statistically speaking, pretty much nothing. Given that for most drivers there is less than one accident for every 500,000 miles driven, the odds of you suffering any significant consequences for not wearing a seat belt on any given trip in a car are somewhere around 0.000002% for every mile you are on the road. (2 per million miles driven for all age groups between 20 and 79. The figures are for California. I'm guessing it would be similar in other states, but at least not radically different. The numbers were lower for the ones I checked.) This would be (roughly) a 0.00008% (that would be an 8 one hundred thousandths of 1 percent) chance of getting in an accident if I decide to go visit my parents.

So again, why is it the business of the police to protect me from the possible consequences of my own decisions?

The answer, in this case (aside from all the dynamics of people feeling the need to impose their will on others) is that it is good business.

Writing seat belt tickets is good business for the government because it generates revenue. The threat of a ticket is good business for insurance companies and others because it will get a few more motorists to buckle up, which, when accidents do occur, minimizes the human damage and therefore minimizes the costs. It is good business for the cops because A) the number of tickets written is a performance measure that can be pointed to as an indication of a job well done and B) unlike the reality of failing to protect individuals from crimes committed against them, in this case the failure to protect them from themselves has almost zero consequences.

Of course, none of this addresses why we allow the continued encroachment of the Nanny State into our personal decisions and the consequences thereof, but I don't feel like ranting for the rest of the night. Instead, I think I'll just go order a Gadsden Flag.

 

by Cziltang 
Posted: Sunday, May 21 2006 07:41:33 PM

The dog ate it
link

The Judge is at it again.

Perry de Havilland, on the foolishness of tribal loyalties (conservative and liberal in politics).

by Cziltang 
Posted: Sunday, May 21 2006 03:29:31 PM

It seemed like a good idea when I thought of it...
link

Well boys and girls, we finally made it to the end of the week. We made it through the wierd schedule, the lack of sleep, the doctor's appointment, the trip to the bank and trip to the appraiser to have the hail damage on the ratmobile checked out. I've been running on caffeine and perverse sense of irony for about 22 hours now and I think the Head Rat has been up longer than that. Rat Jr. has been visiting friends, so both of us could have crashed about 6 hours ago, but, as is typical with us, neither of us can sleep.

Given the way my life usually plays out, I expected the insurance people to total my truck. After all, it would be the twisted thing to have happen since I'll be making my very last payment on the truck in a few hours. That's the way things usually work for me.

It has been unusually mild here in the Ratlands this spring. As late as the first part of this week we were having highs in the low 60's. Summer has come with a bloody vengeance, however, as it was in the upper 90's today. The Head Rat and I were sitting in a parking lot this afternoon, waiting for the insurance guys to come tell us that they were totaling the truck and we were just dripping. As is often the case on hot, lazy summer afternoons my mind was wandering. I got to thinking about a bumper sticker I saw earlier in the day: WAR It doesn't determine who is right, it determines who is left. I had some really interesting thoughts about that, but I didn't get them written down on my PDA because I got interrupted by the insurance guy.

I guess I've got a lot more damage than I thought, because they gave me a check for way more money than I was expecting. Which is kind of weird, since the check was for more than I thought the truck was worth. Apparently the ratmobile is worth considerably more than I thought. Of course, that's all well and good, but is only marginally relevant, since I can't sleep and I can't get that stupid bumper sticker out of my head.

My first impression when I saw it was, "Yes. Exactly." It seems to me that it pretty well sums up my feeling about war (kind of in general) and our current set of military conflicts (in particular) rather nicely. In retrospect, I realize that (given that there was a peace sign sticker right next to it) it was probably intended to make some pithy point about the pathos of war and how there is no right side and there is all that death and horror and no winners and only victims (and more importantly, we have no right to claim the moral high ground or invade other countries or kill brown people). At least I'm guessing the sentiment was something like that. It probably won't come as a surprise that I didn't interpret it that way.

When I saw that "it determines who is left" bit, I thought "Absolutely, and I for damn sure want to be one of the ones who IS left". When this business of the conflict between radical Islam and Western Civilization is over, I want to be one of the ones who is left and I want to be left in my decidedly superior culture without interference in my life from an atavistic cult of violence.

Yeah, I know that isn't a terribly politically correct sentiment, but frankly, I think it is defensible. I could spend some time trying to answer the usual arguments against this kind of position, but that sort of thing always smacks of "straw man" tactics. On a philosophical level, (since I want to get to a different angle) I'll just say this: A religion/culture (say, Radical Islam) that demands that its women wear bags over their heads so their men don't get "tempted" is not just different from one (say, Western culture) that doesn't, it is demonstrably inferior. Period.

But the philosophical arguments are not what was intriguing me tonight. I was thinking more about practical issues. A lot of people from various political stripes seem to think that if we just left the Radical Islamicists alone to do their thing in their own way and made a few concessions here and there (like not publishing cartoons that upset them) we could all get along and we would leave them alone and they would leave us alone and we could all coexist peacefully. I have to admit that a certain part of me is a bit enamoured of that sort of neo-isolationist bent. I'm not xenophobic, but since I pretty much just want to be left alone on an individual and local scale, it isn't too much of a stretch to consider it at an international level. The problem is that I can't envision a scenario where it would work.

The crux of the matter is that I don't believe the Radical Islamicists have any intention of leaving us alone under any circumstances. Bear in mind that I work in corrections. Also bear in mind that while I am fascinated by history, I am a dilettante, at best, and am painfully aware that my knowledge is far from complete in the matter. But here's the proposition: I know of no instance either on the personal level (and I have considerable personal experience with a large criminal data base to work with) or on a larger scale (up to the international level) where appeasement has ever satisfied a violent aggressor enough to solve a conflict.

I am willing to revise my opinion. I would welcome examples contrary to my proposition. I'm not going to set unreasonable standards for "solve" (like it fixed the problem permanently, for ever, etc.), but I think I have a pretty solid reason for believing that, at a practical level, a policy of appeasement and accommodation is just wrong and cannot work.

If you've got possible counter-examples, e-mail me. Unless you specify otherwise, I will identify authors with links to their web sites. I realize I get wound up sometimes, but this really is a good-faith request, because I am aware that my knowledge of the subject is limited and I really am interested in a civilized dialogue.

by Cziltang 
Posted: Saturday, May 20 2006 12:34:02 AM

New Adventures in Old Media
link

It's been "new staff" week at work this week. I've been doing training for our latest crop of new staff. I've also been trying to work with my newer supervisors on 3rd shift. That creates something of a scheduling dilemma. The best least bad solution I could come up with has been to work 3AM to noon. Unfortunately, that schedule is just about exactly wrong for my body clock, so I've done very little but work and try to sleep. But, it is almost over. Another nap, another night/day at work, a doctor's appointment and an appointment with the insurance adjuster and it will be over. By this time tomorrow I should be crashed, with or without chemical/liquid assistance.

In the mean time, I don't seem to be able to sleep more than about 2 hours at a time. So, while I'm trying to get back to sleep, I've been listening to the music channels on cable. Maybe it is a reflection of my frustration, but even that was starting to annoy me, so a couple of days ago I started checking out some of the other stuff at the upper end of the cable line up. In the 950's on my cable line up, I found talk radio.

Now I remember why I can't handle talk radio. They have callers.

Yesterday, I caught Hugh Hewitt's interview with Tony Snow. Interesting stuff. Then he started taking calls.

Today I caught Jerry Doyle's show (Jerry Doyle was Mr. Garibaldi on Babylon 5 if that means anything to you). I really liked his style and his thought process. Then he started taking calls.

I have maintained for some time that the fundamental flaw in the argument of all individuals who propose Nanny State regulation is that they are inherently elitist and believe that they are somehow wiser, more intelligent, more thoughtful, more considered... somehow just better equipped to make decisions affecting and on behalf of "the masses" than all us unwashed heathens out here. I've never been able to understand that. Now, I think I'm beginning to.

They listen to talk radio.

by Cziltang 
Posted: Thursday, May 18 2006 08:45:17 PM

Ask the Cats
link

(via Hugh Hewitt) For a fresh take on border security see IMAO's Ask the Cats

by Cziltang 
Posted: Wednesday, May 17 2006 06:03:45 PM

If my brain hurts, it's not entertainment
link

Last night I was reading an anthology called "A Science Fiction Argosy" (edited by Damon Knight). There are some interesting stories, but I got kind of annoyed. I'm sure there's a formal word for it, but science fiction writers seem to be fond of the literary device where the protagonist is plopped down in unfamiliar surroundings or wakes up in unfamiliar surroundings and the idea or concept or point they are making is revealed as the protagonist slowly learns the details of their circumstances. This, I can handle. The whole point of science fiction is to extrapolate circumstances into the future or an alternate reality. After all, science fiction would be really dull if the authors had to explain the quirks of the story's reality before they could get to the narrative.

What frustrates me is when authors "head pop" (a term one of Rat, Jr.'s instructors used) back and forth between the perspective of the protagonist (who is, sort of by definition "in the dark") and various other characters (who are, sort of by definition "in the know"). What bugs me about this is that you don't really have any way of evaluating the "in the know" character's perspective, because they are acting and speaking with the benefit of their knowledge which you don't yet have. Add in a lot of "unmarked" conversation (my term for those conversations in books where there is no "said Bob" marking and you are supposed to figure out who is talking by the context of the conversation) and the frustration meter just starts pegging at "max".

One of the stories I was reading last night reminded me of national politics. I was spending all my time reading and re-reading to try to figure out what I knew and didn't know and what each of the characters knew and when they knew it. On top of all the other issues, this particular author was also fond of really subtle implication and innuendo. Now, I was pretty tired last night, but at one point I just stopped when I realized I didn't have any idea who was saying what.

I don't consider myself stupid, but I realized that for all of my pretensions and flirtations with subtleties and abstractions, I am really a rather concrete, simple man. And while I don't mind thought-provoking entertainment, I really prefer my amusements to be a bit more straight-forward. I would have found that thought depressing a few years ago when I still thought I had a vested interest in being (and having a reputation as) an intellectual. Now, it just is. A fact. An inescapable reality, no different than a thought that the sky is blue. I'm just simply not as complex (or nuanced, if you will) as I used to think. That particular bit of knowledge isn't really depressing, although I will admit to a wee bit of what I suppose is grieving for once-cherished pretensions; just a quiet bit of sadness, like the indulgence of a bit of yearning for a piece of what might have been, or the bittersweet longing for the road not taken, or a few minutes of mourning for the child who didn't live.

Today I've had a couple hours sleep, but I'm not really all that interested in working that hard at entertaining myself. The anthology will wait. I have a date with 900 channels of HighDef Widescreen Wonder.

by Cziltang 
Posted: Saturday, May 13 2006 07:51:46 PM

Elephant Talk
link

Talk talk talk,

it’s only talk

Comments, cliches, commentary, controversy

Chatter, chit-chat, chit-chat, chit-chat,

Conversation, contradiction, criticism

It’s only talk

Cheap talk

Talk, talk, it’s only talk

Debates, discussions

These are words with a d this time

Dialogue, dualogue, diatribe

,Dissention, declamation

Double talk, double talk

King Crimson's Elephant Talk

So I'm sitting here listening to Lord Runningclam (something called Desert Dress) which I know nothing about other than it is kind of schmaltzy and pleasant, and the lyrics for Elephant Talk popped into my head. It doesn't really mean anything, other than I'm tired. I hate going to bed before midnight and I hate getting up in the morning. I hate rush hour traffic (at least what passes for rush hour traffic around here). Hell, it took me 15 minutes to get to work this morning.

Don't you just hate it when something happens and it takes you twice as long as normal to get to work?

Yes, I do understand that there are probably millions of people in this country who would love a 15 minute commute. I shared a cab to O'Hare airport one time with a businessman from LA who told me if he left for work at 5:00 AM he could get to work by 7:00, but if he didn't leave until 6:00, he couldn't make it to work before 10:00. That's just way outside my realm of experience. If I was willing to make a 2 hour commute, I could live in the middle of nowhere where my parents were born and still stop for breakfast on the way to work.

So, that was a bad joke, but I still hate morning, and as long as I'm whining, I hate being so tired when I get home that all I want to do is flop on the couch and watch tv. I hate that I just lost one of my staff members today and I hate the fact that we also lost a good secretary and I hate the fact that it is considered gauche and un-PC to refer to her as a secretary.

Thus endeth the whining.

But not the annoyance, as I've just spent 10 minutes looking for the proper attribution for the quote "hate is too strong an emotion to waste on someone you don't like." I've heard it attributed to Dick Gregory, but the only thing I've found tonight attributed to him (that I like) is "Hell hath no fury like a liberal scorned."

Gee, it's 11:00 PM, my new bedtime.

Whee.

by Cziltang 
Posted: Thursday, May 11 2006 10:24:16 PM

Diplomacy
link

The text of the Iranian letter to President Bush is posted at the Carbolic Smoke Ball.

by Cziltang 
Posted: Tuesday, May 09 2006 06:47:21 PM

Disingenuous
link

I really like this word, "disingenuous", for a variety of reasons, not the least of which is that (according to the Free Dictionary) "The meaning of disingenuous has been shifting about lately, as if people are unsure of its proper meaning." Nothing quite like a word with a nebulous meaning to throw about when you are looking to appear erudite and condescending at the same time. I bring this up only because my sister was in town over the weekend.

Not that she used this word. She tends to use little words and speak slowly when we are having a discussion. Given my inexorable drift away from what she perceives as the truth of her moral high ground on the left, she appears to believe that I have suffered some sort of brain trauma which renders me incapable of having a serious discussion about grown-up things.

So basically we had a rather unpleasant discussion in the waiting room of the hospital while we were waiting for the results of my mother's heart catheterization. (She is fine. The "anomaly" that was picked up in her last stress test turned out to be an anomaly in the stress test. For a woman in her late 70's she has remarkably little plaque in her arteries and appears to have a remarkably healthy heart.) But, while we were waiting for that news, we were chatting about a variety of "current events" when I made the mistake of mentioning concealed carry.

Yeah, OK, it was kind of dumb on my part. I really do know better than to bait her like that, but I was actually kind of curious how it went over in Lincoln (Nebraska) when their governor signed the concealed carry bill earlier this year, given that Lincoln and Omaha seem to me to be kind of liberal islands in the conservative Nebraska sea. Now, in my family, we don't yell and scream and carry on. We just get snippy and then don't speak to each other for a while. (My grandmother and her brother's wife got into an argument in the late 50's and the sister-in-law didn't speak to grandma until the early 80's.) So let's just say that my sister made some condescending comments that I'm sure she thought were both scathing and definitive and then dismissed the discussion out of hand.

Silly me. I should know better than to try to talk to my betters.

by Cziltang 
Posted: Monday, May 08 2006 09:48:34 PM

Geek stuff
link

I've been meaning to mention some of these things for several days, but just never got around to it.

First (via Chizumatic), what Steven Den Beste calls "geekier chess". It is a game called Deflexion. Basically you move pieces (most of which have mirrors on one diagonal) so that when you turn on your laser, the light bounces off the mirrors and hits your opponent's "Pharoah". I'll let you know how it plays when mine is delivered.

Second, there is a fairly new extension available for Firefox called Morning Coffee. It allows you to specify web sites you read regularly on specific days to all be opened in tabs with one click. I currently have 8 that I read pretty much without fail every day. OK, it's not really all that hard to open each one individually, but it is kind of cool to be able to sit down at the computer, click on the little coffee cup icon and have all 8 open automatically.

(Like I said: Geek stuff)

Third, I really like my high-speed internet connection. I would feel significantly put-upon if I were ever to have to go back to dial-up. Unfortunately, I've been having a problem where it appeared that after a certain amount of time, Firefox just quit recognizing that there was an active internet connection and I was unable to load web pages. I thought it was Firefox, because while this was happening, I would still be able to get streaming audio from an internet radio station, so I knew the connection was still open. The only way I could get back my ability to load web pages was to shut everything down and reboot the computer.

So, I did some research. The first solution (that worked part of the time) was to open up the DOS command line and kill the internet connection with the " ipconfig /release " command, then open it again with the " ipconfig /renew " command. Like I said, it actually worked part of the time. But, the problem has been getting worse, so I've been looking for alternatives. After several hours of research, I found an oblique reference to the possibility that I could be dealing with a DNS problem and a potential fix that involved using a DOS command called " ipconfig /flushdns ". Keep in mind that I didn't really know what that did, but it seemed to help, so I went with it for a while.

Still, it was annoying to have to open up the DOS window every time things got bogged down, and lately I've had to do it more and more frequently. So, I did several more hours of research and eventually came up with another possible solution. but didn't ever get around to trying it. Until tonight, that is, when I started having to run the "flushdns" command between every web page.

It turns out the problem isn't Firefox at all. Apparently my ISP's DNS nameserver (which I now know means Domain Name System) is getting overloaded. I found this information buried in a forum at mozillazine:

The DNS nameservers are like a telephone directory service; their purpose is to convert the easy to remember hostname "www.google.com" to the IP address "64.233.167.147" that is actually used by the servers and routers on the Internet. If the DNS nameserver is dead or unresponsive, "www.google.com" will get you nowhere but "64.233.167.147" will bypass the nameserver and get you to Google more directly.

You can tell if this is your likely problem by entering the hostname "www.google.com" in your address bar. If you can't get to Google, but you can if you enter the numerical IP address "64.233.167.147", then it is probably DNS nameserver overload. The author of the post suggests:

1. Call your ISP's tech support and ask them whether any of the DNS nameservers that your machine automatically connects to through DHCP are experiencing problems (overloading or failure because of Internet attacks) and if so what they are planning to do about it. Unfortunately, many people report that this may be a waste of time: your ISP may not acknowledge that a problem exists or their tech support may be ignorant and isn't able to help you. If you can't get satisfaction from them, forget about using their DNS nameservers and go to step 2.

2. Rather than using your ISP's DNS nameservers, use stable, reliable and non-congested alternative nameservers such as public nameservers or those of a major university nearby. A list of public nameservers can be found at http://www.broadbandreports.com/faq/7472

If you've been having this problem, it is worth reading the article. Changing the network configuration to use a couple of nameservers off the suggested list seems to have fixed my problem.

Of course, I didn't know there was such a thing as a public nameserver. It is amazing the lengths one will go to to preserve the ability to access useless information like this at a moment's notice. (It would, however, explain why I haven't been able to write this week: my intellectual wave has been bottomed out. Catch me in about 10 days and I'll be bloody brilliant.)

 

by Cziltang 
Posted: Thursday, May 04 2006 07:44:50 PM

Cero pesos
link

I often have things I want to talk about, but just can't quite get a post to flow right. Of course, some times I just don't care. But I mostly try to be at least coherent when I'm talking about things I take seriously. Illegal immigration is one of those topics. Via Hot Air today, I found this piece which makes some of the points I have been trying to find a way to make and offers a course of action to boot:

Let’s face it–both parties are awful when it comes to protecting our borders and enforcing our immigration laws. Neither party has learned anything from history. The 1986 amnesty and subsequent smaller amnesties have only resulted in more illegal immigration pouring across our borders. We now have an estimated 11-15 million illegal immigrants living in this country. While many of them are hard workers here to carve out a better life than they could get outside the US, the fact is that many of them strain our social services beyond the breaking point. Illegal aliens make up a far disproportionate percentage of our prison population, and take advantage of our schools and hospitals without paying for the services or showing any interest in becoming Americans and assimilating our beliefs. In fact, many espouse reconquista rhetoric aimed at destroying the America we know and love.

(emphasis mine)

And the title, "Cero Pesos"? The author suggests that we write polite notes to both the RNC and DNC suggesting that they stop pandering and get serious about closing the borders and include a Cero Peso note as a donation based on the value of their current efforts. (He provides a link to a page where you can print four of these reasonably clever cero peso notes).

by Cziltang 
Posted: Thursday, May 04 2006 07:12:27 PM

That'll help
link

Well, here in the Ratlands, we seem to have survived our "National Let's try economic blackmail to keep them from closing the borders Day". There may have been some impact in these parts, but when all was said and done, there didn't seem to be much happening around here. Personally, the whole mess infuriates me. And not because I'm some sort of closet racist with a xenophobic hatred of "brown people."

While I try not to take my political philosophy from statements by comedians, Dennis Miller summed up my opinion in his last HBO special when he said something to the effect of us not minding if immigrants come here, but they should sign the guest book on the way in. America (the idea) has always been about coming here to make a better life. I'm fine with immigrants coming here if the following conditions are met:

1. Come here legally. I'm not opposed to loosening immigration quotas, but if you start your stay here by breaking the law, you've got nothing coming.

2. Try to fit in. That means learning English. Be proud of your heritage, cling to your traditions, but if you want to be here, learn the language. I didn't ask you to come and I resent paying for efforts to prevent your assimilation (like requirements that your kids be taught in Spanish).

3. While you are entitled to your own opinion, kindly refrain from whining to me about what a horrible place this is. We have plenty of people here who are willing to do that and besides, no one is holding a gun to your head to prevent you from going home.

And that last bit is, I think, the crux of the whole matter. If you don't want to think of this as "home," you (not to mention the rest of us) would probably be happier if you went back where you came from. If on the other hand, you came here (legally) to establish a better life for yourself and your family with the intent of staying permanently, I say "Welcome aboard."

Update: This was an admittedly emotional argument on my part. For something a bit more scholarly, try Heather MacDonald:

The American legal tradition has until now assumed that it takes a congressional enactment or a judicial ruling to overturn a duly enacted law. With the ubiquitous chant, "No person is illegal," first popularized by Los Angeles Cardinal Roger Mahoney, that tradition is over. Pace Cardinal Mahoney, under existing immigration law, a person may in fact be "illegal," if he has broken into the country without permission or has overstayed his visa. Mahoney and the hordes who have taken up the "No person is illegal" slogan beg to differ. No law has the power to confer illegal status on an alien law-breaker, they say. Therefore, the existing laws are void — simply because the illegal aliens and their supporters do not like them, not because Congress has decided to withdraw them. This alleged power to overturn laws based on sheer presence is a remarkable new constitutional development.

 

by Cziltang 
Posted: Monday, May 01 2006 09:58:30 PM

101st Fighting Keyboardists
link

Captain Ed, Freedom Dogs, and IMAO have created the 101st Fighting Keyboardists, complete with a logo that references the "chickenhawk" meme. While I am sympathetic, I don't think I qualify, given the basic requirements for membership:

We welcome all of those who feel they qualify for the unit, but especially those who have a sense of humor as well as a sense of purpose.

If I had 2 more of the required qualities I would be a shoo-in.

by Cziltang 
Posted: Monday, May 01 2006 09:31:18 PM