Author Archive
It?s election time again, so let me give you some advice.
The smartest thing you could possibly do is to not vote, but only if you?re an American.
If you haven?t heard of the voting paradox, I?ll explain it briefly. It won a nobel prize when it was first published, but I?ll try to do it justice.
In a democratic system, it is not possible for a 3rd party to get the majority of the vote.
Suppose we have the left wingers and the right wingers. Enter a 3rd candidate. If we put him in the middle, he takes marginal votes away from the left and the right, yet still doesn?t win. If we put him on the far right, he just takes votes away from the right and the left wins, and the converse is true if we put him on the far left.
If we give him the same political agenda as either the left or the right, then he just takes votes away and the other side wins.
What?s worse than only getting to chose between 2 candidates? We the voters don?t even get to pick the candidates! It?s what Penn Jillet of the magic group Penn and Teller likes to call ?Penn Jillette?s Curly Howard Theory?. Remember the three stooges where Moe holds his fingers out to Curly and says ?pick two?. Curly then selects 2 fingers and Moe pokes him in the eyes with those two. The same is true with voting, either way we lose.
Ok what does this have to do with not voting? I?ll get to that. First, let?s have another history lesson.
In America, we have an electoral college. Under this ?ingenious? system, representatives cast electoral votes for a candidate based on how their state votes. These however work much like the trigger on a gun. It either fires or it doesn?t.
Under this system, if Michigan votes 53%-49% in favor of John Kerry, then he gets all 17 electoral votes, and Bush doesn?t get any. Also, there is no stipulation that a representative must give his electoral votes to the candidate who wins the popular election. He is free to go against popular vote if he so desires. This is truly not a reflection of the public?s interest. It also tells us one important thing: your vote is insignificant.
Let?s look at it in mathematical terms. The ?return? on voting is measured by the expected gain from voting ?correctly?. By correctly, I mean voting for the party that will provide you with the highest utility of income. Interpret income however you like, it doesn?t matter.
So, unless it?s your vote that actually decides the election, it doesn?t cause the ?correct? party to be elected. So unless the election is so close that your vote decides it, your vote doesn?t cause the right party to win, so it doesn?t give you any return whatsoever.
It’s like playing poker and calling a bet when you don’t even have a pair in your hand. 99 times out of 100, you’re just throwing your money away; the same is true of your vote
Since in our discussion of the electoral college we?ve already established your vote doesn?t decide the election, you can expect no mathematical return whatsoever on your vote. In other words, your vote doesn?t make one lick of a difference whatsoever.
Why then do we vote? Perhaps it gives us a sense of false control over the election.
The media keeps reporting that election turnouts are dropping, rightly so. The true patriots are staying home on election day.
Just look at people?s rationale. Sayings like: ?Anybody but Bush? or ?I don?t like Bush but Kerry is worse.? That?s the most cynical point of view ever possible. It?s like saying ?I?m voting for XXX because the election doesn?t mean anything to me?
So do yourself and your country a huge favor: bitingly stay home on election day. Besides, what kind of scum sucking, piss poor pathetic excuse for a human being are you if you can go in there and actually pull a lever or punch a card for either one of these buffoons?
January 1st, 2005
Many of you may remember the dotBAR from a long time ago.
Well, I’ve come up with something better:
The dotCULT toolbar
It’s packed full of features, it doesn’t have any adds or annoying crap, and it’s free. Sadly, it only works with IE.
So go check it out and let me know what you think. The page has a list of features as well as a screenshot.
January 1st, 2005
The human ego has no limits. Passing a group of protesting Greenpeacers on my way to formation, I wondered just how meaningless their fight is. Their theory goes along the lines of ‘Protecting the environment, preventing humans from destroying the earth’, etc, etc. How dare we think that we could possibly have such an impact on this planet? This rock, which has been in existance for a couple billion years now, has seen countless evolutionary cycles, ours perhaps being one of the more advanced. This planet has survived eons of being bombarded by meteors, platonic shifts, natural disasters that only appear in our worse nightmares. How dare we assume that we, a species that has been in existance a mere 200k years or so, could possibly have so significant an impact as to destroy this planet?
At the base level, probably even without realizing it, Greenpeacers and the like aren’t questing to save the planet. They merely want to preserve our species. Even if we manage to completely eradicate the ozone layer, use up every natural resource, and destroy all other speicies in our quest to stay alive…the planet will remain. Earth will still have the prime conditions for forming life. The planet’s cycle will merely restart again with the lowest forms of life. And who’s to say this hasn’t happened before? We even assume that we’re the first creatures of our kind, that we’re the first of a cycle.
There’s nothing wrong with trying to protect the environment. It’s only natural in trying to save your own skin. But at least realize the futility, and recognize that humans cannot exist forever. It’s simply against our nature. We are nothing more than a small part of the cycle, too afraid of being stepped on to admit our insignifigance. But being the inferior forms that we are, will we ever be brave enough to admit to this?
January 1st, 2005
I’m glad Osama Bin Laden has not been captured. Now before you call the NSA and have me declared an enemy of the state, you might be interested to know that there are other people who don’t want him caught just yet either – and many of them were elected by the American people.
Don’t get me wrong, I was scared and sickened as I watched live, late-breaking, up to the minute coverage of the country getting sucker-punched on September 11.
Within hours of the attacks, details emerged that the conventional weapons that the terrorists employed against the crew and passengers of those flights were box-cutters and flight training, but make no mistake: the weapon of mass-destruction the terrorists used was CNN.
The blanket coverage from the media destroyed our centuries old innocence and belief that our safety was never truly in jeopardy here. Whatever horrors went on in South Africa, whatever terrorism occurred in the Middle East, whatever genocide occurred in Cambodia, it wasn’t here. We were safe here. How many of us believe that just as strongly today as we did on September 10th?
This is not going to turn into the millionth rant about the evil media conglomeration that has supposedly programmed us and controls our lives for profit. Quite the contrary, the media is the most important soldier in this war, with no disrespect intended to those in uniform.
Just as the terrorists used the media against us, the Bush administration is using the media against the terrorists.
America, for all its faults, deep down is a country full of good guys. The American people will not support beating up on a weaker kid, even if that kid deserves it. They will not allow their Armed Forces to be used to exact revenge, only to bring justice. Most importantly, the populace in the United States will not fight a faceless enemy or a helpless people.
Before the powers that be could unleash U.S. soldiers and weaponry against the Taliban and al Queda, they knew they had to put a face on the enemy. Despite the fact that the Pentagon was attacked, the World Trade Center was destroyed, and thousands were lost, there still existed a need to give the general public someone to hate together, one person’s name and face to fight and crusade against.
It’s worked before. How many of us had any kind of beef with Saddam Hussein before the Gulf War started? By the end of the campaign, we were wiping our behinds with Saddam toilet paper and despising an Iraqi leader we’d never heard of.
Our economy certainly required a stable world market for oil, and liberating the democratic nation of Kuwait seemed like the right thing to do, but it was bringing Saddam Hussein’s face into our homes using every form of media in existence that caused the citizens to place yellow ribbons everywhere they could, in passionate support of our troops fighting the war in the Gulf.
Now to the present. Among the first actions of the US government was to arrest throngs of people for visa violations, having suspected ties to terrorist organizations, being possible material witnesses, anything they could think of. Then they widely publicized these sweeping arrests, and let it be well known that those caught were being detained indefinitely, while the public’s imagination was left to wonder about the interrogations that followed.
The result was that members of al Queda and other terrorist organizations feared the worst and wondered if they were next. Some placed phone calls trying to exchange information and give or receive instructions, some fled the country, and others are now doing their best to stay out of sight. The important thing was that people that were already being tracked were spooked and they moved or they made a call, which made them even easier to find and monitor in the future.
The President then addressed the nation in a speech broadcasted coast to coast, live on NBC, ABC, CBS, Fox, CBC, BBC and every other network on the planet except for MTV. Though had they broadcasted it I’m sure Carson Daly’s analysis of the President’s address would have been enlightening.
And who can forget that image of Congress standing shoulder to shoulder singing God Bless America. Hell for a moment even I believed in the old bags.
So as long as Osama Bin Laden is free, his face will be on television as the focus of an international manhunt and we will give our politicians a green light to use the Armed Forces to destroy his (and other) terrorist assets in far-away nations. Let him sit and rot in a cave for the time being, and let the U.S. government handle its business in Afghanistan, Sudan, Iraq, and wherever else they must go to keep me safe.
Many of the key terrorists will be snatched in the middle of the night, or be dealt with by some Army Rangers and a silencer. And we will give the President two thumbs up for the entire campaign, as long as Bin Laden himself has his fate shared with all of us, beginning with the words:
“We interrupt this program with an important development in the war on terrorism.”
January 1st, 2005
No, this isn?t your racy Aaron McCray type article about how schools treat minorities unfairly; in fact this article has nothing to do with race or gender period. I?m not going to preach about how we should have separate classrooms for boys and girls, or separate schools for smart kids and burnouts. I?m not even going to preach that I think it?s unfair how burnouts can get the same degree by taking fewer classes of less difficulty; that?s another topic.
What I?m talking about is a type of segregation that existed prior to Dick Clark?s rockin? new years eve, still exists now, and unfortunately (along with Dick Clark) will exist for a long time to come. Maybe I?m just old, or maybe my high school was weird, but I remember back in 8th grade on that magical day when we got to select classes for our first year of high school.
At the top of the form I remember having to choose:
Course of Study: [ ] College Prep [ ] Vocational [ ] General
I thought nothing of it at the time and checked College Prep, as I had a great dream of playing football for the University of Michigan (later that year however I learned my chances of playing college football were slightly less than my chances of running into Elton John at my local Hooters). This reminds me of a long story about hockey, high school wrestling and garden gnomes, but I?m trying to stick to my topic.
In my first two years of high school, everything was fine. I took computer classes, shop classes, and the usual math, English, and science. Then junior year things split up. Shop and computer people went off to vocational training while college bound students stayed in the classroom. I was torn on which way to go, why couldn?t I do both? Thankfully, and with a little bit of ?encouragement? from my parents, I went on to college, but I wish I would have been able to get some real training in CISCO networking or CAD.
It doesn?t stop there though, it gets worse in college. If I want to ask deep questions about life I can major in philosophy. This was fun, but I wasn?t allowed in the computer lab. If I want to answer these questions I can major in Physics. I got access to the physics lab, but I couldn?t do theory. Thankfully the decision was easy. I wanted a degree that would get me a job, so I chose engineering. Now I get to work with AI and computers, which is great, but everybody gives me weird looks when I discuss the philosophical consequences of this AI.
Why can?t high school students get hands on experience while at the same time preparing for college? In the old days there was one subject that encompassed all: philosophy. Going back to Plato?s academy, everybody learned everything. ?let no one enter who does not know geometry? etc etc. People were well versed. Nowadays, this just isn?t the case. As an employer, wouldn?t you prefer your potential employees to have knowledge of more than just their concentration?
You just don?t see the same type of well-rounded employee anymore. Humanities courses are seen as ?additional requirements? instead of useful classes. Is being well-rounded still important or do we prefer people with much knowledge, but limited scope? Or maybe this is just a problem in my hometown? Does anyone else notice this?
January 1st, 2005
Are we weaker?
The other day my mum went to the op-shop to buy a rug for our dog. The owner saw the rug that mum picked and said “you know, that’s not really suitable for a human”. Mum laughed, told her it was actually for our dog and everything was fine.
But this got me thinking, once upon a time when humans walked the earth we didn’t have rugs. Maybe some fur they skinned off an animal, but that would still not be considered suitable for humans. The more we learn about our bodies, they more we try to protect them. But is this resulting in our races weakness?
It doesn’t stop at clothing – food is a prime example. Once upon of time we ate from trees and bushes, killed animals and cooked them over a fire. We didn’t have sanitary conventions. We drank what water we could, not filtered mineral water sold in bottles. Yet we lived. Our life expectancy was much lower, yes, but the human race survived.
There was less diseases. Our systems were stronger. Did you know that if a baby is kept in very sanitary conditions it was a much higher chance of developing asthma. If a baby ingests a small amount of dirt its respiratory system will strengthen.
The diseases that did exist would kill more often. The conditions were harsh. If your body couldn’t handle these conditions then you would die.
But your weak genes wouldn’t be passed on to the next generation. As a whole humans benefited a great deal from these deaths.
Now we live in a sterile world. The weak survive, they prosper. The human races weakens.
The meek shall inherit the earth.
Later,
Kung Fu
January 1st, 2005
As human animals we have only 3 basic needs: Food, Shelter, and Sex. Yes, I said sex. It seems we are hard wired with an instinct to promote the survival of our species. As women, we desire to have children. As men, we desire to impregnate women, and though we are not always aware of it, our primal urge is to impregnate as many as possible.
As many as possible? Yes, that?s right. In fact, that?s probably how the human race actually did survive. By choosing a life partner, males have only one chance to pass on their genes. Choose a celibate (or stubborn) female, and our chances of having an heir greatly decrease.
This idea seems very efficient???..until you throw in civilization. You see, when we are young, we depend on our parents for these 3 basic needs. (yes even sex, although it takes on different forms?just read up on your Freud if you don?t believe me). When we reach puberty, we learn to start satisfying these needs by ourselves, and unfortunately this means the sex need too. Shockingly, the pregnancy rate for girls under 15 years old was 12.2% in 1997. That?s 12.2% of girls 14 or under. I won?t even go into the rest, as they are too shocking for me. Obviously we have a problem here.
I?m sure some of you may remember hearing on the news about the mother that drowned her kids in the bathtub, the lady that gave her baby away at a bus-stop and of course the Ramsey parents. It?s cases like these that just make me think: ?some people shouldn?t have children.?
In America we need a license to drive. We need a license to sell beer. Hell, we even need a license to catch a fish to eat. Why not require a license to breed? Or better yet?..
I just read about how it?s now possible to reverse a vasectomy. (that?s where the male gets a little snip making it impossible to impregnate a female.) We circumcise most babies at birth, why not give them a little snip too? Imagine no more rape babies, no more teenage pregnancies, no more kids having kids, no more saving lunch money for birth control, and no more stealing condoms out of dad?s dresser drawer.
Want kids? Great! Complete the required psychological exam proving you are an able parent, make sure you?re not on welfare, pay a nominal fee (most likely going toward education) and you?ll get your license to breed. That?s it. No background checks, no Criminal record check, not even a credit check! Just show your license to the doc, and he?ll reconnect you.
No more population problems, no more idiot parents, no more teenage pregnancies or unwanted children, no more marriages built solely around a child. We could virtually eliminate genetic defects, put an end to orphans, and practically reduce abortions to zero! Oh what world!
January 1st, 2005
I was in my local McDonalds recently, stocking up on grease-soaked alternatives to healthy living. I ordered a #1, the Big Mac meal complete with fries and a Coke. I asked the cute blond behind the counter to hold lettuce. I handed her my cash and she gave me my change. In less time than it took me to fill up my cup from the self-serve fountain island, they?d filled my order and that of the guy who ordered after me. I put the cup on the tray, and more out of habit than suspicion, I popped the cardboard box open to inspect my Big Mac. There, peaking out from between the buns and beef patties, was a fine showing of lettuce. Arching an eyebrow more out of amusement than irritation, I signaled for the cute blond to come back over. I pointed to the lettuce and reminded her that I had ordered my sandwich sans lettuce.
She threw me this exasperated grin and said, ?What does sans mean??
?It means without, minus.?
Her face tracked no recognition, so I decided to simplify.
?I?m saying that I ordered a #1 with no lettuce.?
Her face bloomed into understanding. She smiled, winked, and walked away. Then she continued to wait on customers. I watched all of this with something approaching stupefied wonder. At a loss for words, I waved her back over.
She asked me what I needed.
I looked at her.
She looked at me.
I said nevermind, and sat down at a booth.
Whilst busying myself with picking off the shredded lettuce from my sandwich, I spied a sign hanging on the wall at the far end of the serving counter. It read, ?McDonalds: Proudly Employing America?s Future.?
I?m very worried.
January 1st, 2005
A lot happens in the battleground that is the mind of a teenager. You make choices and take actions that are sometimes in contrast to who you truly are, all to win the war of acceptance.
As you mature and grow in years, the battle lines that were drawn in your youth get blurred. You used to struggle to free yourself from the oppression of your parents to fit in with your peers. Fitting in was everything. With age and experience comes the realization that it is more important that you fight for your own feelings, thoughts and beliefs, even if they are different from your friends.
There is something about me that has been a closely guarded secret of mine since my high school years. I made a discovery, of sorts, during an impressionable time of my life, and I have successfully hidden it from my family and most of my friends.
At first I was completely ashamed, fearing that if word ever got out, I’d be ruined. Please try to understand, the stigma attached to this both in society and in the media was very different a decade ago. It was looked upon by the general public in an extremely narrow-minded and negative way. What kept me from telling people was the sure embarrassment I would have suffered.
I would have been mocked at school, my parents simply would not understand, and my friends would have never looked at me the same ever again.
Thankfully, times have changed and society has evolved. I know that there are others like me out there, and that is very comforting. With mainstream acceptance, there has even been a society built by those like me. There are even parties so we can get together, knowing we all have something in common.
I admit that I am a tiny bit hesitant to formally ‘tell the world’ my secret, but I finally feel comfortable and secure enough to share this information about myself not only with my family and friends, but with the general public. So here goes:
Mom, dad, everyone – I visit chatrooms.
January 1st, 2005
Next Posts
Previous Posts
