X-rated pet name

A friend just got a beautiful black cat. She is now considering names, and has come up with a clever tie-in with galactic astronomy (dark matter and rotation curves).

I have displayed less creativity, and downright bad taste in picking cat names.

When I was in 5th grade, we found a black cat wandering my grandmother's yard. Both my mother and I like strays -- just about all of our animals were picked up off the street. (Take THAT, self-righteous rescue people! :) )

Being rather uncreative, and naive, I decided to call her "kitty" for a while. But that was a bit unsatisfying, and channeling my inner toddler, I adjusted the leading consonant:

Titty.

Yes, I called my (female) cat titty.

Why? Well, I suppose it was because it had the same "t" sound as those which appear in the second two-thirds of kitty.

But my mom, or anyone else, didn't have the heart to tell me that "titty" meant something else, something that, perhaps, would cause me to blush years hence.

My friends didn't know - I remember one guy calling her "titty" without flinching.

Eventually, my mother, or a teacher, or some other concerned adult wanting to spare me from emotional trauma and embarrassment, told me I had to come up with a new name. I ended up with "Tilly Tinker", pulled, oddly enough, from a grammar exercise.

A part of me thinks that this was a reasonable thing for a child to do - take the dominant consonant sound and replace the less frequent ones with it. "sammich" (sandwich) is an example of a less pronounced version of this.

Or maybe, even then, I knew. I KNEW.

Sometimes, the comments section of an article isn't a complete waste of time

Don't get me wrong - usually it is. I've learned to avoid reading comments on CNN articles. But the more specialized the article, the lower the readership, and so - sometimes - the comments tend to be of higher quality.

Occasionally, however, they are interesting for completely different reasons.

Observe this, from the comments section of an article at the NYTimes Fivethirtyeight blog:

Katherine Harris, assuming the poster is the real deal, is referring to this piece of the associated article:

According to the current FiveThirtyEight projection, President Obama will carry Maryland by 23 percentage points; Mitt Romney is projected to win just 39 percent.

Hm. Let's see what the replies look like.

Note that the only polite reply came from a guy in the UK, possibly because he didn't know the role Katherine Harris played in world history, or possibly because British people tend toward excessive politeness.

It has been 12 years. Have you forgotten? Or do some wounds never heal?

Innocence of Muslims and Vietnamese video stores

The recent arrest of Nakoula Basseley Nakoula, the alleged creator of the inflammatory film, Innocence of Muslims, reminds me of something that happened about 13 years ago. I don't remember if it received national or international coverage, but I thought it worth mentioning, as it was a big deal at my high school.

In 1999, Truong Van Tran operated Hi-Tek, a video rental store in Westminster, California. Westminster goes by the nickname "Little Saigon" because of its sizable Vietnamese population. Most were refugees fleeing from the Communists, and many were ex-ARVN. As you can imagine, the vast majority absolutely hated Ho Chi Minh. Memories of "reeducation" were fresh in that community.

The community erupted around the holiday season of Tet when Tran put up a picture of Ho Chi Minh and the Communist Vietnamese flag in his store. The number of protesters reached 10,000, with many chanting, singing patriotic songs, and waving South Vietnamese flags. I don't recall that the protests ever turned violent, but they got close a few times.

The story resonated at my high school because there was a number of Vietnamese in the student body (and one somewhat eccentric history teacher, named Mr. Dong). Perhaps differently from those in Little Saigon, many emigrated from Vietnam long after the Vietnam War. It's not obvious whether that made them more or less likely to hate the Communist regime. I know that my friend emigrated in the 1990s, and that his father, a former South Vietnamese government official, had been "reeducated". There may have been others with similar stories.

Eventually, Tran was arrested for video piracy, documented by news cameras that showed lots of bootleg videos in his store.

Similarly, Nakoula was arrested for parole violations, something unrelated to his film.

Now there are important differences. The Westminster protests in 1999 were largely localized and largely peaceful, and directly affected a relatively small group. By contrast, the protests over Innocence of Muslims is global (around 1 billion Muslims and counting) and violent.

But both provide a window into the sometimes conflicting goals of free speech and public order in America.

Some critics would argue that both cases were the result of government and interested parties finding a convenient excuse to make a problem go away. Others would argue that anyone under such high scrutiny would probably be shown to have broken some law. And, finally, it has to be acknowledged that anyone willing to do things that are so mind-numbingly stupid might be more likely to run afoul of social norms and the legal system. (Remember folks, just because you have the right to do something doesn't mean that you should, and it definitely doesn't guarantee it's smart.)

The truth is, all of these factors were probably operating. There is a gulf between our ideals, whether free speech or otherwise, and the extent to which our society reflects them.

We'll see what happens with this guy. Based on the Tran case study, Nakoula probably won't go away -- Tran protested Garden Grove's resolution to make it harder for Vietnamese government officials to pay visits.

We'll also see how this gets reported in the Muslim world, and if this does anything to stem the violent protests.

The Red Line: US jobs programs do not cover Binyamin Netanyahu

Despite claims to the contrary, Netanyahu is directly injecting himself into the US elections. He enjoys a closer relationship with Mitt Romney, and probably would be happier with a Romney victory. But regardless of his specific preference in the US Presidential election, he correctly senses that this US election gives him the maximum amount of influence, and is using it to push a more hawkish and explicit plan of attack against Iran's nuclear program.

Netanyahu is right about one thing - there is a red line approaching. But it's not the point of no return for Iran's nuclear weapons program. It is the point at which it becomes politically possible in the United States to question the nature and depth of the partnership with Israel.

I'm not exactly a dove regarding Iran. In the past I have tried summarizing the history of Iran's nuclear program with an addendum, and also considered a grim trigger strategy for Iran (and vented a bit about Netanyahu's rudeness at that time).

I don't think King Abdullah II of Jordan was correct during his extended Daily Show interview that Iranian nuclear ambitions would be curbed once the Israelis and Palestinians reached a peace settlement. It would help - Arab leaders could bring to bear pressure against Iran with less domestic political risk. But I don't think the most die-hard optimist thinks that is even possible, much less probable, before Iran develops a nuclear weapon.

But there's a difference between developing plans for surgical strikes and committing to them publicly. The former can meet the national security requirements of Israel. The latter meets the political requirements of the Israeli government in general, and Netanyahu in particular.

Some voices in Israel realize that Netanyahu may be putting the relationship between Israel and the US, undermining the long-term security of the latter. (Sadly, I was unable to find a free version of the full text of the Haaretz opinion piece - if anyone finds it, it will be much appreciated.)

But I think Netanyahu has already been demanding and rude on many occasions in the past - remember VP Joe Biden's visit to Israel, during which the government just happened to unveil plans for new settlements?

Sometimes I wish I understood more about Israeli domestic politics. It would give me a handle on whether Netanyahu represents mainstream thought (which I doubt), and to what extent the Iranian threat is seen as both imminent and existential (more interesting, and possibly mainstream). So maybe Netanyahu is responding to his constituency.

Or, maybe he's also playing domestic politics and is pursuing policies, and pursuing them in a way, that will help Likud, and by extension, himself. Last time I checked, Likud is the party of the right -- it sure sounds like it under Netanyahu.

Look, the United States is Israel's most powerful and most loyal ally, to the point where I think it has significantly hurt American interests. So it is seen as our job to ensure the safety of our ally. But it is not our job to make sure Netanyahu has a job. That's his. As he's been part of the Israeli government for an awful long time, he must be somewhat good at that, at least.

Israel prides itself on being the only democracy in the Middle East. Putting aside challenges to that, that means the Israeli people are responsible for his persistence in politics. Like it or not, leaders in democracies are mirrors of us. We had George W. Bush for eight years, and rightly had our balls busted on that one. Israel has a parliamentary government, and can change leadership somewhat more frequently than we can, should they desire.

So I can thus infer that Israel has a sizable population that really is jingoistic and feels entitled to US protection.

Someone, please remind me why we're allies again.



PS: this graphic was a poor choice.

If the issue really is as serious and imminent as is claimed, why use such a crappy, ridiculous graphic? Who is Netanyahu's communications director?

In his defense, an extensive search of the Internets reveal that this isn't a Wile E. Coyote bomb. The closest he comes is his trademark Acme rocket.

Here's hoping the Iranian weapons delivery systems prove equally defective.

The homecoming dance

There's an incredibly heartwarming story about a town rallying around Whitney Kropp, an unpopular sophomore girl who was nominated to her homecoming court as a prank. It reminds me of an event that happened to me in high school. I have to stress that I was the "victim" of kindness instead of cruelty, and while less monumental than Whitney's story, it does highlight the quality of people in the Class of 2001 from Rosemead High School.

Long ago, in the year 2000, I was nominated to the homecoming court senior year as a result of a conspiracy. The smart, attractive, and popular women my year basically decided it would be nice to have someone not popular for football or chiseled good looks (my words, not theirs). I missed the announcement due to sickness, so the ASB and Senior class presidents visited me at home, where I was embarrassed that my room smelled like I hadn't showered in a while (which, given the flu, it's possible I hadn't). Kinda embarrassing, especially since these two were gorgeous and charismatic as only Thai women can be.

So, I got fitted for a free rented tux (the first and only time I've worn one) and posed for pictures with the guys at the dance, all of whom were genuinely good guys. For instance, I'd known Jorge since grade school. He was always the kindest person, and the single best double-dodge player to have ever played at Shuey Elementary. Update: Apparently I didn't know the guys on court that well, but they were nice. Old age has caused me to substitute someone better-known to me. If it's this bad at 29, I don't know what it'll be like in whatever numbers come after that one.

I'm the Asian one. Also, check out my awesome scanning/photo editing skills.

I was told that all the guys were bringing their moms to the dance, and I complied. However, I, being the social and anxious moron that I was, didn't even think to bring a real date as well.

It dawned on me at some point early in the dance. Yeah, it's a little weird to show up with your mom as your date, even if all the other guys are doing it, and then to realize they're all dancing with people born during Reagan's presidency while you are attempting to cha-cha to house music with your mother.

I think my exact words at that point were, "This sucks. Let's leave."

Now that I think about it, this was one of two dances I attended in high school. There was a Sadie Hawkins' (or Backwards, or whatever the hell you damn kids call it nowadays) dance where I helped my date serve churros the entire night. Again, socially awkward.

All this to say, I, too, had a Cinderella story, thanks to people at RHS. But I'm also proof that a frog in a tux is still a frog. There's still time - maybe instead of trying for a Masters in Engineering/JD/MD, I should go to finishing school.

Then, maybe I'd be king, and not just a prince. Damn you David Flores! Floreeeeeeeeeeeeeees!

The Observer

Second letter from father to son

Dear son,

I'm sorry I haven't written earlier. I know you've struggled - mightily - and fallen. You have contemplated the most fundamental, the most dangerous, choice in human existence. I am writing now in your hour of need.

Looking back, maybe it seems as though you arrived here through non-decisions, choices that you either failed to make or were made for you. It is thus with bitter irony that I hope this difficulty making choices will stay your hand before this final one.

Unlike most around you, I love you too much to lie. I cannot tell you you will be well some day, that you will know, reliably, happiness. I cannot tell you that you will be free from health problems, or that you will find happiness, or love, or anything that will validate the decision to live and fight. There is a real danger that, despite the best efforts of those who love you that you won't feel happy ever again, and bitterness will overtake you as the world around you dims and crystallizes.

Yet I ask you to continue. And a part of yourself, long dormant, long mute, asks you to continue.

Your lingering compassion, your sense of justice, your creativity and intelligence - they all demand more time, and time better spent. But most of all, your sacred honor - the honor that transcends religion, or heredity, or culture, as difficult as it is to conceive - your sacred honor calls you. It calls you to not leave unfinished, or diminished, the vague but real destiny that you choose to build and own. It calls you to put necessity over your fears, your doubts, and paradoxical pride. The necessity is this - you must feel you are doing good by those who love you, and whom you could yet love.

It fights against decades of conditioning, irrational thinking, and faulty reasoning about protecting yourself, and protecting others from you. I am sorry that I was not there, and was not healthy enough, to dissuade you, to reassure you, as good men and good fathers ought. I'm sorry I shot down your dreams of a career in writing, and instilled within you, as far as I was able, a worship of the technical over the creative. I'm sorry I was too selfish and too weak as a man to embrace the responsibility for your emotional well-being. I'm sorry I threatened you and your mother with physical violence. I'm sorry you were trapped with me at various time when I was out of control.

But - and this is important - you cannot let it stop you from what you need to do. For you need to do things on this earth for yourself and for the greater world. You were given some talent, which, through your hard work and the mentoring of others, you grew to a decent capacity for reason and a store of knowledge. You were given some love, again, which you were able to grow into a sense of compassion and justice. And perhaps, counterintuitively, your traumas and disappointments gave you both idealism and compassion, placing you, the wounded, in the position of healer and protector.

The more you worry about your own vulnerabilities, the more they will become magnified, until they consume your life and self-respect. That is too high a price to pay.

I do not ask you to have hope - though I pray hope makes its way back into your life. What I ask, and beg, is not forgiveness, but for you to find greater strength than I was able to - strength in the form of humility, of humor, and of compassion.

To give you the courage you need to heal and triumph, I would spend ten eternities in the worst hell. For what hell could be greater than the realization I failed my son?

Fight. Love. Dream. But even if all else deserts you, live. Not because life itself is so precious - but because you will find a way to make it so.

Love,

Father

The Simpsons, Sideshow Bob, and the evolution (or not) of American politics

I just watched "Sideshow Bob Roberts" (1994), an episode of the Simpsons which covers Sideshow Bob's release from prison and his election as mayor. It was hilarious, but depressing how little has changed.

1. Schwarzenegger is still a Republican, and even became governor of CA in 2003. Consequently, he's even more credibly a prominent Republican than when this episode aired.

2. Rush Limbaugh is still on the radio. And yes, he's still a fat blowhard.

3. The secret Republican conclave applauded a top loading water dispenser as their next mayor. Arguably, this echoes the Romney-is-an-empty-suit claim.

4. Democrats still have to fight the soft on crime reputation.

5. One-liners are more important than substance in debates.

6. Personal illness during debates affects perceptions. (Scott Brown sounded a bit sick during today's debate.) However, I'm guessing most don't know that it's a reference to the Kennedy-Nixon debates.

7. Krusty the Clown votes for Bob, even though Bob tried to frame him for armed robbery, because he is itching for an upper-class tax cut.

8. Voter fraud is a major plot device (in this case, having the deceased people - and pets - vote). Note, however, that the voter fraud in this case was perpetrated by Bob, a Republican, even though most current efforts against fraud (turnout?) are being pushed by Republicans.

9. The Democrat is being portrayed as a womanizer, a tax evader, and illiterate. Two of these three still apply today, and it appears literacy/intelligence/education is no longer necessarily seen as virtuous (see: Rick Santorum and Massachusetts Senate debate).

10. Margins of error in polling data are still funny.

11. Lisa has a great line when she says "I can't believe that a convicted felon (Bob) could receive so many votes (100%), while another convicted felon (Quimby) could receive so few." Since broadcast, a handful of Democrats (including Blagojevich) and Republicans (including George Ryan) have gone to jail. Also, see Providence, RI and Washington DC for convicted criminals returning to public office.

12. Larry King is still old, and probably will still be involved in the debates, or coverage of the debates.

The things that don't age well:

1. Dukakis debate reference.

2. Citizen Kane reference when Bob celebrates at Republican headquarters election night.

3. Stacey Coone was the sergeant involved with the Rodney King trial.

4. People don't remember Matlock, or why old people loved it so much. (RIP Andy Griffith)

To an English Teacher, Getting Pwn'd

I just watched my high school English teacher on Wipeout, a show that has achieved success for one reason: schadenfreude.

Photo stolen from his FB page, posted by one of his many adoring students.

For some reason, I thought about a poem, and then proceeded to butcher it*, in order to commemorate this great event, and a great man.


The time Michael Jackson changed his race
We expelled you from the schooling place
Quayle gaffed and time went by
At home we dreamed of SDI.

To-day, to school all slackers come,
Shoulder-high we bring books home,
And set before you, graded down,
Essays turned in late, as you frown.

Smart dad, to scramble through mud spray
From wheels where platforms do not stay,
And distant though the field grows,
You just can't beat them cheating hos.

Eyes the foam pad impacts shut
Stop signs have your face done cut
And laughter sounds no worse than cheers
After you stop for a couple beers.

Now you will swell after the rout
Of lads that wore cartilage out
Those whom gear and piston outran
And shame died long before this man.

So set, before the blisters fade,
The stink foot on the desk of shade.
And hold to the English class up
The aged, wrecked rotator cuff.

And round that dizzy, beaten head
Will flock to gaze students unread
And find a grouchy Rosemead dude:
"Damnit, kids, the paper's due!"

*With apologies to A.E. Housman, all of my English teachers, and the American people

Thoughts while watching Massachusetts Senate debate between Scott Brown and Elizabeth Warren

Update: Evidently the drama started before the actual debate. Harry Reid ended voting in the Senate to make sure Scott Brown could go debate. Interesting tactic - like him or not, Harry knows how to use (bend?) the rules.

C-Span: Massachusetts US Senate Debate between Scott Brown and Elizabeth Warren

19:09 I started late. What the FUCK is Scott Brown doing going on about the Native American heritage of Warren and whether she got an advantage for hiring for Harvard?

19:14: On tax policy - Warren seems to have more specifics - Brown is on the defensive regarding taxes. He's confusing middle-class with upper-income individuals.

I like the format/moderating of these debates - they let them go at it. Reminds me of Game 7 2010 NBA Championships, where the refs didn't call as many fouls and just let the teams go at it.

19:17 Brown is trying to bait Warren into attacking the Chamber of Commerce and the independent businesses group. Warren isn't taking the bait, and attacks Scott Brown's record. Warren dodges the trap of looking anti-business.

19:20 Thought Brown was lying about the highest corporate tax rate in the industrialized world - confirmed by HuffPo. 

19:23 Wow. This race is personal. Brown is taking yet another personal swipe at Warren's history. As someone once pointed out, men need to take care to appear not to be bullying women during debates. Joe Biden was cognizant of that during the 2008 VP debates.

19:25 Brown really hasn't been able to mount an effective counterattack against charges that his record shows him to be favoring big businesses at the expense of working-class families.

19:29 "Balanced approach" is now the catch phrase for taxes and cuts in spending. Not complaining, but it does surprise me how Republicans can credibly combat the deficit without looking at the revenue side. It's like saying that I will lose weight just by eating less, and not looking at exercise at all - it could work, but a combined approach might be healthier.

19:30: Major themes so far -

Warren - Brown's record is one of supporting billionaires.
Brown - Warren will raise your taxes.

19:31 One place where Warren has an advantage - Brown has a record, and Warren less so. Gives Warren an advantage, even if Brown's record isn't particularly bad.

19:32 Another personal attack by Brown. He basically implied that Warren supported Kagan because she was "her boss".

19:33: Heh - "anti-choice". Nice re-re-branding, Warren.

19:34: They're actually pretty close on abortion. 
Oh, first mention I've heard of the late Senator Kennedy. (But I missed the beginning of the debate.)

19:37: They're both fighting for the mantle of Kennedy, and characterizing his views on the Blunt Amendment providing exemptions for employers for moral obligations for contraception.

19:39: Brown seems a bit more comfortable discussing criteria for military intervention - no doubt in part because he is apparently a colonel. Waiting to hear how he feels about Libya.

19:43:  Both sound a bit more nuanced than traditional neoconservative ideology. Brown wisely isn't arguing against Obama's foreign policy record, or Secretary Clinton's work.

19:44: Brown does want a harder line on Iran. Apparently "nuanced approach" is now a dirty word too! But they're actually pretty close on these policies. Warren is bringing the Presidential race into it, which I think is a good call, except that this is probably not a foreign policy election.

19:46: Wow - Brown is directly attacking Warren's livelihood!

19:49: Warren needs to avoid the academic habit of nodding when someone is lecturing/speaking. It makes it look like she's agreeing with Brown when he's attacking her.

19:53: Hm... Brown landed a decent blow on the Travelers Insurance case. Warren didn't directly reject it, and went back into a standard response. Sounds like the Globe investigated.

A question: who had the longer career as a corporate lawyer?

19:55: Warren is running against the Republican party.

Scott Brown ripostes by saying "You're not running against Jim Inhofe. You're running against me."

19:57: Not sure who has the better argument. Brown has a point that Warren is running against him, and that the overall argument about which party has control over the Senate is secondary. But Warren has a point about the fact that Inhofe is a paleorepublican on environmental issues, and probably shouldn't have a major position regarding US energy policy.


Post-debate thoughts

One thing both seemed to agree - on the economy, there was a lot of talk about Commonwealth jobs. But this race was more national than local. 

The Republicans - possibly - could run a stronger race by localizing it, depending upon Brown's record, and by hammering away that Warren probably would vote with the Democrats nearly all the time. Because Massachusetts is the second-bluest state in the Union (after Hawaii), he has to push the bipartisanship button.

The Democrats benefit somewhat by nationalizing certain aspects of the race, by making it clearly a referendum on two different visions for America. Warren posts lots of stuff on her FB feed about helping small businesses. But the bigger issues that are presently salient - debt reduction, Middle East policy, and energy costs - are national policy issues, and it may be fair game to run against the party as well as the candidate.

I have no idea what's salient for voters in Massachusetts. That it's close means that a fair number are pretty happy with Scott Brown.

In terms of mannerisms, I think Brown came off a bit more hostile and personal than he should've. Although women enjoy plenty of disadvantages in American politics, one advantage they do have is that a man has to be at least somewhat careful to avoid looking like a jerk when attacking a female candidate. Brown took some cheap shots, mostly centering around Warren being part of the Harvard community. He may need to take a more positive and less defensive tone.

Warren, for her part, is a good communicator. But I think her head does bob around quite a bit, and again, it's an academic habit of nodding one's head when listening to a lecture/speech. Brown was also obviously a bit more practiced about the little nicety segues - although I don't think anyone bought that he would really like to chat with Warren's brother about his tours in Vietnam. So, even if subtly so, Warren did come off as somewhat more partisan.

Rick Roll'd, Republicans, and the Republic, and trying to find the funny side

 Rick Santorum: Conservatives Will Never Have "Smart People On Our Side"

I swear, I thought this was an article from The Onion. But it's from Buzzfeed. And it's an accurate quote.

Reality has been out-Onioning The Onion for a while, to the point where I think they'll go out of business in the next few years. How can you mock the world when it consistently steals your punchlines?

I read the article, and still had a piece of doubt. Surely, this must be an elaborate hoax. What leader could be credibly anti-smart, especially a leader who was a credible Presidential candidate for a major party?

Then I saw the video.

I admit, I laughed. A lot. I laughed more than I had laughed at all of the stand-up comedy I had listened to today - and I listened to some absolute gems.

But then I thought a bit, partly triggered by some of the quasi-defenders on the thread. Some people, including some who strongly dislike Santorum, are on the thread are questioning whether the title is misleading. Do they have a point?

In a word, no.

In _____ words,

*breathes in*

Ok. First, it's a direct quote.

Second, it's pretty clear from the context that "smart" is supposed to have negative connotations. At the bare minimum, he is associating it with academics or expertise, and this is clearly evident within the context of the wider speech.

So "smart" is being used as an insult.

Oddly, my experience has indicated that you can call a person a lot of things and not have them be bothered, as long as you don't attack their intelligence. Once you question that, the reply you can expect is the communicative equivalent of a honey badger released in your pants, and said badger having been told that delicious termites exist somewhere within your entrails.

I could leave it at that. But I can't. Because at this point my laughter at the sheer ridiculousness of having been "Rick Roll'd" has given way to consuming rage that he, and a huge number of people in this country - and around the world - are serious. He's not a somnambulant stand-up comedian genius - he's fucking serious.

And another thing: put aside the blindingly breathtaking bullturd of trying to make "smart" a dirty word. When did "elite" stop being a compliment and start being derogatory? When did it get conflated with "elitist", which has a distinct meaning? In the world of policy, business, academics, and science, I HOPE the people leading an area of research, or for that matter, the country, are elite. I HOPE they are better than average. I HOPE they're smarter than I am. I HOPE people who enjoy large amounts of power, beauty, success, and responsibility are endowed with above-average capabilities.

I hope that, in part, because we've got some damn meritocratic values that are pretty fucking cemented into the foundation of our ideal of America.

I know we like to call them idiots and numbnuts, etc., and politics can be pretty stupid. It's fun, and mocking politicians is truly the only global sport. It's way more entertaining than watching dirty foreigners spend 90+ minutes chasing a sphere of white hexagons or black pentagons - or black hexagons and white pentagons... I care so little I didn't bother researching which it was - only to finish in a goddamn tie. As a good American, I don't do ambiguity - moral or athletic - well.

But there is a naive part of me - perhaps the part that still believes in Santa Claus, the Easter Bunny, and Justice For All - that believes elite (but not elitist) leadership is a desirable thing. Hell, there's a part of me that believes it operates at some level - hopefully higher than my pessimistic weltanschauung would have me believe.



Otherwise, the nation is truly fubar.

When, when, did the passion for individual sovereignty override any sense that some people have better knowledge over some things than other people? When did we start believing that movie stars have special insight into vaccinations, or psychotherapy, or anything that isn't fucking movies? Why, with such bitter irony, does a political slant against concepts of wealth transfer and affirmative action embrace the democratization of truth, debasing expertise into mere opinion?

It's not just an American thing, as Dara O'Briain, an Irish comic, points out. (He, by the way, studied physics and mathematics in college before going into comedy.)

The sad truth is, no, my opinions are not better than expertise. I think I know a lot about things, and certain things a great deal. But I'm not an expert in health policy, or fashion, or abstract expressionist art. I'm not even a goddamn expert in astronomy - I've only got a masters degree in it. I quit my PhD program in part because I had a vague sense of how fucking much I needed to know about a specific area, and how goddamn hard I'd have to work to get there, in order to be anywhere near a credible expert. And I didn't care enough, even about planets around other stars (which is pretty damn awesome, even by the lofty standards of astronomy), to do it.

I know more than other people, a lot of people, most people, about a lot of astronomy. But there are people who know more than me. And in order for society in general, and science in particular, to, you know, progress beyond rudimentary levels, I have to TRUST people that have more knowledge than I do. I have to. I can't research every goddamn thing; hell, memory is such that a good chunk of the things that I think I know, and think are well-founded, are probably partial or complete bullshit.

Yes, experts sometimes lie, or cheat, or fuck up. There's a measure of skepticism we have to learn. But at some point, I have to trust - or I become, in the most literal sense, some sort of paranoid schizophrenic.

I have to decide whether fluoridation is a massive conspiracy with untold health effects that aren't covered by my knowledge of chemistry, or if it really is something that is the product of (known) health and economic benefits outweighing against (known) health and economic costs.

Maybe I could speculate on the extent to which the cult of individualism is a coping response to a host of unresolved existential crises modern individuals face, or the possibility that it's a reaction/protest to cultural and religious sources of guilt and shame.

But I'm not an expert. I'm not elite. I'm not smart.

That doesn't preclude me from an incoherent opinion - the standards of fact-checking and refereeing are pretty low for blogs in general, and this one in particular.

But this is too long already. And I got some stupid, pointless-ass shit to do... like watch Youtube comedy clips. Better that than contemplating the intellectual suicide of our great nation.

Like Stephen K. Amos, I, too, am trying to find the funny side of life.

PS: If you actually clicked on "Rick Roll'd", congratulations. You've just Rick Rolled yourself, and you have no one to blame except you.

For M, an old friend

Once, long ago, when the world was young and I was happy, well before 9/11, I had a friend. I'll call him M for this post.

M was a friend of mine since at least third grade, and perhaps earlier. But we were pretty close, at least as close as I was to anyone. We'd play stupid games at recess, and his sense of humor always made me laugh.

I knew M was Egyptian, and, if I thought about it at all, I assumed he was a Muslim. (I learned about Islam -or at least a brief history and a bit about the Five Pillars - in 7th grade history class.) But at some point he told me he was a Coptic Christian. I didn't really know what that meant at the time, and to some extent, I really don't know now.

M had pretty extreme conservative views, and I didn't know why. I assumed it was because he came from a fairly well-off family. His father was a nuclear engineer. But with his humor, there was a bitterness, and an anger.

At some point, he told me why. A number of his relatives, including some uncles, had been killed by the Muslim Brotherhood in Egypt.

As a result, he carried a strong hatred of Islam. I still didn't quite know what that meant - I had no similar experiences, and I was too naive or stupid to really probe and asked him how he reconciled an Arab identity that has become tied to Islam.

We didn't really talk after high school; I saw him once at a BBQ just after college, and found out he was studying political science.

I didn't really think of him much in the following years, not even when the Arab Spring came to Egypt. But after the news identified the alleged filmmaker of the recent anti-Islam Youtube movie as a Coptic Christian, I started thinking about M. I remembered his anger, and could imagine that he would sympathize with, or actively promote, such a movie.

But I also hope that he and that his family is safe. I remember an image of Christians linking arms to protect Muslims praying in or near Tahrir Square. But memory of unity is fleeting, and Coptic Christians are now in greater danger.

I loathe the idea that a fool could make a movie, knowing full well the possible consequences. But the whole point of this ongoing tragedy is that a few individuals do not represent a faith, or a culture. Not for Coptic Christians. Not for Muslims. And not for Americans.

M, hope you're well. Politically, we're probably pretty far apart - perhaps to the point that friendship is nearly impossible. But I miss the times we had in grade school, and the jokes we'd exchange in econ class.

Holy War

Today, we have proof positive of the vile treachery of the heathen. And it is time to say that enough is enough.

For too long we have tolerated these fools and monsters. They do not deserve to live among us, if they deserve life at all. Why should they live, when every breath they take blasphemes our faith and mocks our values, when every child of theirs is allowed to grow into a subversive threat to our great nation? Why, in these false beliefs of tolerance and equality, do we permit this evil to grow?

Our leaders were fools to give them the chance to rise above our native children, to assume positions of power and influence, to bend over backwards to accommodate their different beliefs. And we have been repaid, time and again, by violence. It must end, and will end, God willing, by our hands blessed by Jesus Christ.

They do not respect or deserve the blessings of our nation - neither free speech, nor freedom, nor life itself - for they stand against all of these. They spit upon our way of life, out of jealousy, stupidity, or sheer evil.

Let it be done with the certainty of the faithful. Righteousness shall prevail over evil, and the world shall be made better by the sword. Let them burn, and let the vile filth of their lies and perversions burn with them.

For there is no other way we can serve God - anything short of complete and total annihilation of these servants of Satan would be an insult to Christendom and its King.

Murderers, rapists, pedophiles, sodomites! We will rain holy fire upon you and purge your very memory from this sacred earth. God calls his children to arms, and we shall be soldiers for Christ.

Before we can rid the world of this blight, we must first purge our neighborhoods of these incestuous vermin. They flock like greedy rats to our lands and bring naught but disease and perversions. For our family's sake, for our nation's sake, we must slay or expel every one, and all who have been touched by this evil.

God give us the strength to be His instrument of war.

Tomorrow, on St. Bartholomew's Day, we strike against the Hugenouts.

One state, two state, red state, blue state (part 2)

Part 1

Who am I? My name is Murdoch. 

I do not like my little stock. 

This is no good. This is not right. My journalists hack phones all night. And when I pull them in, Oh dear! My company gets trouble over here! 

We like our bike. 

It is made for three. 

Our Mike sits up in back, you see. 

We like our Mike and this is why: Mike does all the work when the hills get high. 

Hello there, Murdoch. How do you do? Tell me, tell me what is new? How are things in your little stock? 

What is new? Please tell me, Murdoch. 

I do not like this stock at all. A lot of things have come to call. A court, a judge, the press, David Cameron. 

Oh! What a cock! 

Oh! What a son! 

Oh, dear! Oh, dear! I can not hear. 

Will you please come over near? Will you please look in my ear? There must be something there, I fear. 

Say, look! A bird was in your ear. 

But he is out. So have no fear. 

...continued

One state, two state, red state, blue state - Part 1

One state, two state, red state, blue state. 

Black state, Jew state, old state, new state. 

This one has a little star. 

This one has a little car. 

Say! What a lot of states there are! 

Yes. Some are red. And some are blue. Some are old. And some are new. 

Some are sad. 

And some are glad. 

And some are very, very bad. 

Why are they sad and glad and bad? I do not know. Go ask your dad. 

Some are thin. And some are fat. 

The fat one has in yellow shat. 

From there to here, from here to there, funny things are everywhere. 

Here are some who like to run. 

They run for fun in the hot, hot sun. 

Oh me! Oh my! Oh me! Oh my! What a lot of funny things go by. 

Some have two feet and some have four. 

Some have six feet and some have more. 

Where do they come from? I can’t say. But I bet that have come a long, long way. 

Say! Look at his fingers! One, two, three… How many fingers do I see? One, two, three, four, five, six, seven, eight, nine, ten. He has eleven! 

Eleven! This is something new. I wish I had eleven, too! 

Bump! Bump! Bump! Did you ever ride a Trump? We have a Trump with just one hump. 

But we know a man called Mr. Grump. 

Mr. Grump has a seven hump Trump. 

And I stood upon the sand of the sea, and saw a beast rise up out of the sea, having seven heads and ten horns, and upon his horns ten crowns, and upon his heads the name of blasphemy.

And the beast which I saw was like unto a leopard, and his feet were as the feet of a bear, and his mouth as the mouth of a lion: and the dragon gave him his power, and his seat, and great authority.

And I saw one of his heads as it were wounded to death; and his deadly wound was healed: and all the world wondered after the beast.

And they worshipped the dragon which gave power unto the beast: and they worshipped the beast, saying, Who is like unto the beast? who is able to make war with him?

And there was given unto him a mouth speaking great things and blasphemies; and power was given unto him to continue forty and two months.

And he opened his mouth in blasphemy against God, to blaspheme his name, and his tabernacle, and them that dwell in heaven.

And it was given unto him to make war with the saints, and to overcome them: and power was given him over all kindreds, and tongues, and nations.

And all that dwell upon the earth shall worship him, whose names are not written in the book of life of the Lamb slain from the foundation of the world.

If any man have an ear, let him hear.

He that leadeth into captivity shall go into captivity: he that killeth with the sword must be killed with the sword. Here is the patience and the faith of the saints.
 -Revelations 13

So…if you like to go Bump! Bump! just jump on the stump with the Trump and Grump.

(Note: the Seuss story is quite long, and so I've decided to cut it here.)

Part 2