Friday, February 25, 2005

Ward Churchill

I realize this post is late in the game. There's always nuts out there that hate their own, and in the US, some of them even thrive. What makes his case so special?

I think in retrospect, a few things stand out.

1.) People jump to his defense saying he shouldn't be fired because of his right to freedom of speech. I think that's crazy. I could lose my job by saying 2 words. That's the world we live in, deal with it.

2.) I think there's a striking resemblence beteween Ward Churchill and Timothy Mcveigh. One of Ward's initial reactions was to write about how the United States had it coming. Mcveigh also was defiant even after he was captured. Years later, Chrurchill expressed grief for some of the people killed on September 11: bystanders, firefighters, and janitors. Timothy Mcveigh did all he could to remain defiant until his execution, but his lawyers have hinted that Mcveigh had expressed grief for the 19 children that he killed in the Oaklahoma City bombing. Interesting indeed.

If I was to ask Ward Churchill one thing it would be this:
Can you name a single Iraqi that was as as outpoken against Saddam as you are outspoken against the US Government. Did he flourish in his own country like you currently are? Why or why not.

Monday, February 21, 2005

Pandering

So I'm reading this editorial. What a bunch of shameless, blatant pandering. Whoever wrote it took it upon himself to pander no less than 7 times!

Pander Count:
=============
Blacks - 4
South L.A. - 2
African Americans - 1

Total:7

But it doesn't stop there:
Different circumstances, different police agencies, different culprits. But to many, the incidents delivered a single message: Society says that you don't count. The rules of fair treatment by police don't apply to young black males.

-and then-

Now the peacemakers are at it again. Ministers, gang workers, community activists and elected officials are trying to channel anger into activism, to push for better youth services, more cooperation among neighbors and a continuing dialogue with police. Their efforts should be encouraged, not feared or disparaged.

So I guess this means we can derive the formula:
Social injustice -> Anger -> Leaders -> Activism that we should all encourage.

At the risk of oversimplifying things every bit as much as the editorial I'd like to suggest the my formula:
Pandering to specific groups -> perceived injustice -> Angry mobs that are controlled by powerful people and groups. That's hardly something that should be encouraged.

So which formula is right? I don't know, but if the second one is, the editorial is unquestionably part of the problem.

Thursday, February 17, 2005

Homo Sapians

A couple archaeologists discover that the human species is several thousand years older than previously thought. According to them, humans are 195,000 years old. Hmm, interesting.

So here it is, the history of the world. 189,000 years go by (that's 97% of the lifespan of the human race), and humans live like a bunch of animals. After almost 189 milleniums go by, a bunch of groups get together on new year's day and say, "Enough of this, let's resolve to make millennium 190 a good one!." So a bunch of PARALLEL societies get together and build some of the most awesome architectural achievements ever: the pyramids of Egypt, the pyramids South America, and Stonehenge. Another thing they decided to do overnight was to invent writing. Then they invent forms of governments that were able to rule over tens of thousands of people. It's these same people that were previously running around touting fire as the pinnacle of human achievement that, almost overnight, were able to buil the pyramids! How the heck could that possibly happen? If humans were able to flaunt these magnificent achievements 6,000 years ago what was preventing them from doing the same thing 50,000, 100,000, or 175,000 years ago? What magically made them decide to make these shocking breakthroughs in architecture, literature, and government, and why did so many societies that were not even in contact with other developing societies somehow do it all at the same time?

Am I the only one who finds this new discovery to be odd?

If a bunch of people were simply dumped in an earth-like lab, how long would it take for them to produce a historically surviving culture? A few generations maybe? Certinaly not 200,000 years! Yet that's supposedly how long it took earth to produce one.

Friday, February 11, 2005

Transsexuals can play in the LPGA?

Are you kidding me?! This is crazy!

I thought transformers were making a come back, but this is just dumb.

Chalk this one up as blogger against transformers in the LPGA.

Wednesday, February 09, 2005

More on Steam

A couple weeks ago googleing "Steam is having trouble connecting to the steam servers", returned 16 hits, now it's 177. Quite an increase. There's a whole lot more to the controversy over here. Interesting...

Among other things is the question of whether or not the EULA (End User License Agreement) that is required to play Half-Life2 is legal or not.

Gosh, I hope not.

Wednesday, February 02, 2005

Dean?!

Are you kidding me? Dean makes the short list for DNC head?

Dean is actually one of the person that inspired me start this blog. Why? Because because I think the general public has grossly confused Dean's divisive popularity with his actual popularity.

If you start splitting the population just a couple of times, you can end up with an extremely dangerous sect. If that same sect starts touting someone's popularity, beware.

Dean is the poster child of that. Here's how he divides the population, 1) Are you a Democrat, and 2) Will you vote for the most anti-war candidate on the Democratic ballot? Dean is a hit among the crowd that answers yes to both questions, the only catch is this crowd speaks for about 15% of the American population. Why's that so bad? Well, considering about that many people think Neil Armstrong never set foot on the moon, quite a bit.

So anyhoo, this nut has the unwavering support of a generous 1-in-6 American. However, the majority of Americans have an unfavorable view of the guy.

Is this a person that should head a party that has lost control of the White House and has actually decreased it's presence in the House, and the Senate? If the Republicans had lost control of all three sects of D.C. would they be trying to get Pat Buchanan to head their party? Only if they were suicidal.