Two today, You're welcome. -- The net neutrality conservative lie

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2010/12/20/fcc-vote-internet-regulation-plan-despite-economic-warnings/

That is lies piled on top of lies piled on top of spin.  Here's some news for anyone who dare disagree with me

Net neutrality maintains the status quo -- as in you can connect to whatever site you want, download whatever is offered without paying anything more.  There are all kinds of network agreements between businesses that maintain the internet.  (Yes, that's how it works.  It might seem to just magically work to you, but it's lots of mid sized, huge and even very small networks intermingled).   One company deciding to charge for certain content could cause a netsplit (We're close to seeing something like that with the level3/comcast debacle).  Do you want a netsplit?  AKA: Do you want to be able to access whatever site you want, or do you want to have to have multiple carriers for different fucking providers (e.g. "I use Comcast to connect to Facebook, and Qwest to connect to twitter"). Don't think that would happen?  You're an idiot.  You've clearly not been paying attention to any of the history of capitalism.

Failure to maintain this status quo, legislatively, or via regulatory authority means the death of the only thing that you use your computer for: a free and open internet (And perhaps, a porn and music collection).

I know a lot of people don't believe it/understand it.  This is a very brief post, but I have convinced hardened anti-net neutrality republicans that they should change their mind.  I can change yours too.  If you're interested in FACTS instead of BULLSHIT PROPAGANDA you should send me a message.  I've been around this silly "internet" thing before there was a "world wide web".  I know how this shit works, and I know how ill intentioned over-zealous capitalist fucks want to change it.   (Twice in one day with the capitalist fucks!)

From the fox-news poll:

Should the Government Regulate the Internet?

Thank you for voting!

Yes, just like other means of communication. 2.06% (644 votes)

 

No, let the Web regulate itself. 66.94% (20,879 votes)

 

Only enough to ensure equal access to the Web. 4.21% (1,313 votes)

 

Only enough to root out criminal activity. 26.33% (8,214 votes)

 

I don't know. 0.45% (141 votes)

 

 

Total Votes: 31,191

SPINNNNNNNNNN Good GOD. "Let the web regulate itself" -- YOU FUCKING IDIOTS.  BROKEN RECORD, SELF ANNIHILATING, IGNORANT BUFFOONS!  I've got to go to bed before I give myself a heart attack.

**EDIT (I had to):  BTW, your internet connectivity costs the same to your network provider regardless of what you connect to/the content you use/view/create/edit.  Don't eat the fucking lies!

~Nic

Oops [we] did it again.

Does anyone run facebook?  I mean.. Google has made mistakes as well, but the number of mistakes FB has made in the past year adds up to all the flubs Google has ever made  (This is an approximation, If you don't think it's accurate, justfuckinggoogleit).  At least Google's motto is Don't be evil, and arguably, they've been rather non-evil, I mean -- if you want to bring up the China shit, look at the back of your fucking keyboard (You too you fucking smug hipster Mac users).  If Facebook eclipses Google for searching in the next 2-3 years (Which I doubt, but the zeitgeist might lean that way), you've only yourselves to blame.  I've serious doubts that Facebook will choose to push forward with cutting edge technology at a tiny price or even free as Google has done for us all.  I doubt we'll see open source APIs that make the web better coming out of Facebook.  FB is to greedy over-zealous conservative capitalists, Google is to liberal mixed economy capitalists.  Just a thought.  And yes, you may mark my words.

GOOGLE:  Make a fucking better "social network platform" already, Jesus fucking Christ; you've got the money.

~Nic

Maybe we should have taken McVeigh to the farm.

Really?  I mean, they're talking about
Pentobarbital, which is also used for physician assisted suicides, but the question at hand largely ignores that fact, and I highly doubt the 105 people that voted Yes knew that.  "Put 'em down like a dog", because, that's not hypocritical or anything.  I just imagine a bunch of Texans running around with hard-ons after reading about John David Duty being killed with the same stuff used to send fluffy off to the farm.

P.S. The more interesting part of the story is that the dude was spending 3 life sentences for rape, attempted murder and robbery.. He was executed for killing another inmate. 

~Nic

*EDIT* After time passed since I made the screen shot, the Yes has skewed even more upward.. a few thousand people and it's now 85% - 15%

STFU

Snowmaggedon?  You're all fired.

My first periodical.. still my favorite

PRESS RELEASE - 2600 MAGAZINE CONDEMNS DENIAL OF SERVICE ATTACKS
Posted 10 Dec 2010 04:45:38 UTC
PRESS RELEASE
HACKER MAGAZINE CONDEMNS DENIAL OF SERVICE ATTACKS
New York, NY, December 10, 2010 - 2600 Magazine, a quarterly journal for the hacker community that has published since 1984, is speaking out against numerous media reports that hackers are responsible for a spate of attacks on numerous e-commerce corporations as part of the ongoing Wikileaks controversy.
Denial of service attacks against PayPal, Amazon, Visa, Mastercard, and other corporations and entities have been underway for the last few days, as widely reported in the mainstream media. Each of these targets had previously taken some sort of action against the whistleblower website wikileaks.org and its affiliates. The media reports almost invariably refer to "hackers" as being behind these actions. While there is great sympathy in the hacker world for what Wikileaks is doing, this type of activity is no better than the strong-arm tactics we are fighting against.
These attacks, in addition to being a misguided effort that doesn't accomplish very much at all, are incredibly simple to launch and require no technical or hacker skills. While writing such programs requires a good degree of ingenuity and knowledge of security weaknesses, this doesn't mean that everyone who runs them possesses the same degree of proficiency, nor should we necessarily believe people who claim to be doing this on behalf of the hacker community.
What the above named corporations have done to Wikileaks is inexcusable and constitutes a different sort of denial of service attack, one that is designed to eliminate an organization, an individual, or an idea. We find it inexplicable that donations can easily be made to hate groups and all sorts of convicted criminals through these same services, yet somehow a website that publishes leaked information - and which has never been charged or convicted of a crime - is considered unacceptable. We believe it's not the place of credit card companies or banks to judge the morality or potential threat level of anyone, let alone those who are following in the long tradition of journalists and free speech advocates worldwide.
The assault on Wikileaks must not be overshadowed by the recent denial of service attacks and these certainly must not be allowed to be associated with the hacker community. This will play right into the hands of those who wish to paint us all as threats and clamp down on freedom of speech and impose all kinds of new restrictions on the Internet, not to mention the fact that the exact same types of attacks can be used on "us" as well as "them." (Interestingly, it was only a week ago that "hackers" were blamed for denial of service attacks on Wikileaks itself. That tactic was ineffectual then as well.) Most importantly, these attacks are turning attention away from what is going on with Wikileaks. This fight is not about a bunch of people attacking websites, yet that is what is in the headlines now. It certainly does not help Wikileaks to be associated with such immature and boorish activities any more than it helps the hacker community. From what we have been hearing over the past 24 hours, this is a viewpoint shared by a great many of us. By uniting our voices, speaking out against this sort of action, and correcting every media account we see and hear that associates hackers with these attacks, we stand a good chance of educating the public, rather than enflaming their fears and assumptions.
There are a number of positive steps people - both inside and outside of the hacker community - can take to support Wikileaks and help spread information. Boycotts of companies that are trying to shut Wikileaks down can be very effective and will not win them any sympathy, as the current attacks on their websites are unfortunately doing. Mirroring Wikileaks is another excellent method of keeping the flow of information free. Communicating with friends, family, classes, workplaces, etc. is not only a way of getting the word out, but will also help to sharpen your skills in standing up for what you believe in. This is never accomplished when all one tries to do is silence one's opponent. That has not been, and never should be, the hacker way of dealing with a problem.
2600 Magazine has been publishing news, tutorials, and commentary by, about, and for the hacker community since 1984. We were sued in 2000 by the Motion Picture Association of America for linking to a website containing source code enabling Linux machines to play DVDs and thus became the first test case of the Digital Millennium Copyright Act. In a similar vein, we are supporting Wikileaks by linking to their existing website through wikileaks.2600.com. We've already changed where this address points to twice as Wikileaks sites have been taken down, and will continue to ensure that this link always manages to get to wherever Wikileaks happens to be. We hope people follow that link and support the existence of Wikileaks through whatever method is being publicized on their site.
###
CONTACT:
2600 MAGAZINE: THE HACKER QUARTERLY
webmaster@2600.com
Emmanuel Goldstein, Editor
Emmanuel@goldste.in
www.2600.com
+1 631 751 2600

Merry go fuck yourself!

Let's beat the merry into them!  If you don't say exactly what we want (We say we don't care about words and how could insensitive things possibly hurt other peoples feelings?  Yes, these are the same idiots who absolutely HATE political correctness.), we'll boycott you.


http://liveshots.blogs.foxnews.com/2010/12/10/merry-christmas-beating-out-happy-holidays/

Because if you say "Happy Holidays" you're disrespecting Jesus (somehow).  Because the whole thing isn't based around the randomly decided date of the birth of Christ anyhow?

WHAT IN THE FUCK IS WRONG WITH THESE GODDAMN FUCKING PEOPLE!?
I originally made that blink but it was too dumb, you're welcome.

It's not that it's something to say to avoid acknowledging "virgin birth", and other such absurdities, it's not that people would say happy holidays because they realize that Christmas and the New Year are BOTH imminent, it's not that people would say happy holidays because they are not interested in offending someone who has placed themselves IN THE FUCKING STORE TO BUY SHIT... It's simply said because it's politically correct.  Right. I feel like I've said this a billion times: You don't have to be politically correct, but it's generally a good idea to not be an asshole to someone you don't know.

"I don't think we bullied; we simply let them know if you are going to offend us, we are going to use our back pocket as our voice and not shop in your store."

Well, on the bright side, they don't strap bombs to themselves and blow the stores up.  Yet.

Read more: http://liveshots.blogs.foxnews.com/2010/12/10/merry-christmas-beating-out-happy-holidays/#ixzz17jTq4gow"

You know what?  I'm taking the lowest road possible.  Merry go fuck yourself.

**Edit: Adding a blink tag in anywhere fucks the whole goddamn thing up pretty bad.. even if you remove it.

~Nic

From man to man

GOD: "Yo Abraham, kill your son"
Abraham: "Word"
GOD: "JK, LOL!"

Free translation provided by BOTD.

..because owning something doesn't mean it's yours

Wow, a Judge who is siding with freedom, and blowing up in the face of bought-and-paid-for prosecutors.  Full text follows.  By David Kravets, Wired.com.  I copy-pasted the article from here

LOS ANGELES — Opening statements in the first-of-its kind Xbox 360 criminal hacking trial were delayed here Wednesday after a federal judge unleashed a 30-minute tirade at prosecutors in open court, saying he had “serious concerns about the government’s case.”
“I really don’t understand what we’re doing here,” US District Judge Philip Gutierrez roared from the bench.
Gutierrez slammed the prosecution over everything from alleged unlawful behavior by government witnesses, to proposed jury instructions harmful to the defense. When the verbal assault finally subsided, federal prosecutors asked for a recess to determine whether they would offer the defendant a deal, dismiss, or move forward with the case that was slated to become the first jury trial of its type. A jury was seated Tuesday.
Among the judge’s host of complaints against the government was his alarm that prosecutors would put on two witnesses who may have broken the law.
One is Entertainment Software Association investigator Tony Rosario, who secretly video-recorded defendant Matthew Crippen allegedly performing the Xbox mod in Crippen’s Los Angeles suburban house. The defense argues that making the recording violates California privacy law. The other witness is Microsoft security employee Ken McGrail, who analyzed the two consoles Crippen allegedly altered. McGrail admitted that he himself had modded Xboxes in college.
“Maybe two of the four government witnesses committed crimes,” the judge said from the bench. “I think it is relevant and the jury is going to hear about it—both crimes.”
The government had fought to keep the witness conduct a secret from the jury.
Crippen is charged with two counts of violating the anticircumvention provisions of the Digital Millennium Copyright Act, and faces a maximum five years for each count if convicted. The government maintains Crippen, a hotel car-parking manager, ran a small business from his Anaheim home modifying the firmware on Xbox 360 optical drives to make them capable of running pirated copies of games.
The judge on Wednesday even backtracked on an earlier ruling that had prohibited Crippen, 28, from raising a “fair use” defense at trial.
Crippen was hoping to argue to jurors that it was legal to hack the consoles because the modification had noninfringing purposes, like allowing the machines to run homebrew software, or permitting limited fair use of copyrighted material such as making backup copies of video games.
While the judge ruled last week that such a defense was not permitted by the DMCA, he seemingly changed course during his speech.
“The only way to be able to play copied games is to circumvent the technology,” Gutierrez said. “How about backup games and the homebrewed?”
The fair-use issue came up as the judge berated prosecutor Allen Chiu’s proposed jury instructions, which included the assertion that the government need not prove that Crippen “willfully” breached the law, in what is known as “mens rea” in legal parlance. The judge noted that the government’s own intellectual property crimes manual concerning the 1998 DMCA says the defendant has to have some knowledge that he was breaking the law.
“The first prosecution 12 years later, and you’re suggesting a mens rea that is akin to exactly contrary to the IP manual: that ignorance of the law is no excuse?” the judge barked.
“You didn’t even propose a middle ground,” Gutierrez continued. “What’s getting me more riled, it seems to me I cannot communicate the severity to you of what’s going on here.”
As the judge worked through his laundry list of complaints over the prosecution, word of the unusual judicial rebuke spread through the courthouse, drawing a trickle of about a dozen prosecutors and defense attorneys into the courtroom to watch from the gallery.
“I apologize to the court,” Chiu said at the end.
Court is recessed until 1:30pm.

You're only allowed to 'holy fuck'

I check in to fox news once a night, to see what kind of nonsense the rest of the country is absorbing, and to formulate my plan of attack for the next business day. Every time other than today, I passively shake my head and close the window. But this one caught me off guard.

The war is won. Women have been freed from being essentially forced to carry, and give birth to children they'd rather not have. Even further, freed from even having to think about it (if so desired). I understand that some people take severe offense to how I've worded that (They're not forced.. they chose to have sex.. or some bullshit cockamamie fuckoff), but that's just too goddamn bad. It's odd, to me.. that this is the same crowd who nearly fucks themselves in the ass (quite a feat) getting spitting mad about someone telling them they should consider less salt intake.

Interestingly, a review of 14 studies involving one infected member of a couple figured consistent condom use led to an 80% reduction in HIV infection/whatever. (Weller SC & Davis-Beaty K (2007), 'Condom effectiveness in reducing heterosexual HIV transmission'. -- big words.. I googled the ones I didn't know.) Interestingly, your chances of being in a car accident, over your entire lifetime, are 1 in 4. 1 out of 50 for inclusion in a personally fatal car accident.. (Yes, the odds are better that you will contract HIV if you have sex with someone who has AIDS/HIV for the rest of your life, and use a condom, than you getting in a car accident). Clearly, with this information, we can safely conclude that there is an agenda above and beyond the "false" sense of security that contraception gives us. (This same argument works pretty safe in the smoking debate)

...So I went on to wikipedia to get a more balanced view on abstinence only, and other sex ed type programs. (You can argue with me on the balanced thing, but I will win.) Here's a quote I found there, from focus on the family (I checked, it's really from them):

Sex is a powerful drive, and for most of human history it was firmly linked to marriage and childbearing. Only relatively recently has the act of sex commonly been divorced from marriage and procreation. Modern contraceptive inventions have given many an exaggerated sense of safety and prompted more people than ever before to move sexual expression outside the marriage boundary.

Apparently someone hasn't been paying attention in history class. To anything. At all. JFC. -- for the first part. The part about contraceptives is clearly a hail-Mary. The cool new thing to do (I suppose it's been around for a while) is to state something that's a lie, but put some kind of element in it that your reader can relate to (In this case, the readers presumably relate to the perceived uptick in 'recent years' of out of marriage fucking). And then they can adopt the lie, because they interpolate the bullshit path between reality and the lie. But as I have learned from experience, most people who are against having sex outside of marriage, when you finally press them, have actually had sex plenty of times outside of marriage -- and that's fine, it's just hypocritical.. like the ex-smokers who nag you to quit. I could go on and on, but I'm sick and tired. My experiences (hearing anti-sex idiots who've actually.. had sex outside of marriage) are, by definition, anecdotal, but of course the plural of anecdote is data.

~Nic

Smoke & Mirrors

I can always count on Krugman to properly express what I sometimes can not: "Instead of cutting through the fog, the [debt] commission brought out an extra smoke machine."

That's all, headache/sick. Bedtime.

~Nic

Wikipedia is begging again.

Wikipedia is the shit. I don't know what I'd do without my Wikipedia (or MPR for that matter). They're begging again.. If you're not a total conspiracy theory nut, and realize that Wikipedia is not a vast left wing conspiracy, maybe throw 'em a fiver.



That is all for today. I should probably start moving some snow.

~Nic

Fo guck yourself.

This summary is not available. Please click here to view the post.

3 - 2 - 1 - YOU'RE FIRED!

Olbermann.. fired. Or, indefinitely suspended. Why? Campaign contributions. I like the guy, but I had to stop watching him because it polluted my mind with all kinds of ideas that were not my own. I hope he gets another gig somewhere else. We need at least one wacko on our side.

~Nic

Better red than dead

This summary is not available. Please click here to view the post.

Justfuckinggoogleit.com

I am a very irritable person, by nature. Just ask anyone who's known me for any length of time.. it's just a simple fact - "Nic is an angry fucker". It's not because of any real mental issue, complex or otherwise (I've tried to find out if it was, and as far as I can tell, it's not).. it's probably simply because of a certain skin and hair 'condition' that I may or may not have(so I hear). But lately this has gone through the roof.. everything annoys me. I've been flipping out on people I don't even know lately.. stupid people asking stupid questions JESUS FUCKING CHRIST, I THOUGHT GOOGLE WAS HERE TO SAVE US FROM THAT! But NO. Every dipshit cocksucker and their brother has to ask something that has an answer readily available in the first google result's quoted text. Moreover, the questions usually come to me in emails! Can you believe this!? The people asking these questions are sitting infront of the world's most vast information system ever conceived, and they WASTE THEIR FUCKING TIME sending me an email: "What's the filter size of xxxx lens?". You know how I find out? I FUCKING GOOGLE IT!

I mocked a woman today at the gas station (to her face). Talking, really really loud on her stupid ghetto cell phone about some fucking bullshit that whoever she's talking to probably doesn't even care about. I pulled out my cellphone, and pretended to talk on it saying "LOOK AT ME, I'M SO FUCKING COOL, I HAVE A CELL PHONE". I got an honest to GOD, first time "OH NO YOU DI-INT" look, to which I responded with a snide look and a movement of my head from side to side. I couldn't believe I did it.. but, at least, the clerk gave me a really warm smile. In retrospect, I guess I'm pretty fucking lucky I didn't get slugged.

Argh! The constant barrage of drug-money-bought or welfare-bought subwoofers is also really taking a toll on my spirit. Everywhere, not just at home -- It's like some asshole brought the prices of the goddamn things down so every dipshit fuckface can pointedly annoy everyone within a block distance.

Politics always make me angry.. it's like the sore tooth you can't stop tonguing. There's been some really fucking stupid shit showing up in the op-ed section of the STrib. Here's one of the latest ones that about made me throw a fucking chair: "...There is a school for pregnant teens. Because those teens made a mistake, taxpayers should pay for a special school?..."

How about this one "If candidates aren't pro-life then we cannot trust their judgment on any other issue. It doesn't matter whether they're running for Congress or the state Legislature, school board or for dog catcher." You've got to be fucking kidding me.

I can't even get a handle on a way to describe the level of absolute absurdity that's coming out of the GOD damn conservatives lately. It's like someone said:

"Well, there's seven deadly sins. Let's go down the list and make sure we've hit them all at least a billion fucking times. Since we're saved Christians, we can just ask Jesus to forgive us and all will be well.

1. Lust: We've got that covered. We're pretty good at putting loads of hot blond idiots on our cult-like cable TV 'news' outlet, we'd rather have our women be pretty office assistants than executives, and to make it even better, we can pay the less than their male counterparts

2. Gluttony: We're really good at hoarding money.. but as for food, that's the next thing we've got to do. At least in Texas our portions are ridiculously large.. and there's always OCB

3. Greed: We thought we had this covered end to end, but apparently getting our henchmen to bring the marginal business tax rates really fucking low, and capital gains taxes down as far as possible wasn't enough. We also need to berate the poor more often, come up with really neat ways to weasel people out of everything they have AND make them out to be the douche bags instead of us. ALWAYS call the money collected for the greater good 'stealing'. We've got work to do here for sure, there is no upper limit on greed.

4. Sloth: At work, we do as little as possible. 'that's not my job' used to be reserved for union members, as we always said.. but now we can get by with saying that, and if anyone says anything we can say 'But that's what the unions you love so much always say'

5. Wrath: Tea-party

6. Pride: I have a job, and I can get everything I need on my own. What's wrong with all these lazy assholes who collect MY TAX DOLLARS on unemployment? We need to do a better job however, working up people into a nationalist fit of 'MERICA! And further promote platitudes regarding things we hardly understand, such as 'freedom' and 'liberty'.

7. Vainty: We drive really nice cars, marry beautiful women for shallow reasons, teach our kids to care deeply about how the Jonses' think of them and basically spend our lives manicuring our outward image. This needs work also"

I didn't proof read that, or much, but I think my point shows up, at least a little. Now stop annoying me, and do something productive. Sloth.

~Nic

Public frameworks are for houses, not real programmers.

Yes. I'm guilty. I thought I was one of the only people in the entire fucking world that isn't interested in learning a "programming language" on top of another programming language. (Apparently only hip and cool "programmers" use frameworks) Yes, I use an AJAX framework, and a couple other for very specific tasks (these are really just libraries) but not an entire-fucking-website framework that basically builds the site for me. Why? Because when whatever is underlying the framework doesn't work right I'm as good as fucked.. I don't know where in the hell I'm going to find the lines to change in this enormous programming language that is made on top of a programming language. Not to mention, everything looks the same these days because most of this shit is built with stupid frameworks.

Web 2.0 = "Look I can interact with shit, but it all looks the same" furthermore; "We're still using the same bullshit web browser model we used in 1995" lastly; "we're not creative enough to come up with an entire new concept, so we'll just build on something that was a good idea 15 years ago, and put 2.0 after it" -- go fuck yourself.

I was pointed to this framework/"rapid" development by a friend Gunar, a German programmer I met who swears by these fucking things. I ask myself: what in the fuck are you going to do if your framework doesn't support the specific thing you're trying to do? Are you going to trace through the entire framework, learn exactly how it works, and implement your feature first into the framework, and THEN into the actual project? No, you're simply going to tell your client that "that feature is impossible". Something I have heard an awful lot, and since I know the actual languages, not a stupid framework, I can actually make that shit happen.

I have my own frameworks, that's how this is meant to be: I have a library of functions,classes and their methods that I use, know how to use and hope to GOD I never have to explain how to use. For instance; newSelectDB($connect[], $db, $table, $cols, $where, $order) grabs whatever the hell I need from a database. The $connect is an array: [host], [uname], [pass], [port]. I am sure there's a GOD damn framework that has that same thing, or something similar, but when I need to change something.. maybe do a query inside of a query (not in for instance), I can simply rewrite a portion of it, make a new method and bam. From that class I can iterate through records nicely by $class->forward(); or even forward($numRecords). I know how it works, if shit breaks, I can fix it.

Rapid Development(tm): stupid. Every time I've worked on a project I've had half a brain to keep the customer posted (looking at the work) until it's done. If a problem comes up, I fix it. This "paradigm", read literally, says: "I know you're making a webstore.. but you have to make small advances, and releases".. so your customer's customer's for maybe an online store... "Check out our new store, it has a shopping cart!" of course, that particular release was the first, and the only fuckin' think you have is a shopping cart... no actual item displays, etc. The term was coined because people are jealous of their highschool buddies who became doctors and get to use fancy Latin words.. the felt left out, so they came up with their own phrases. But it's somehow still the doctors who are porking the hot nurses.

fuck frameworks, and the time wasted learning how to use someone else's functions. Write your own functions

(I know I'm not the only one: Why frameworks suck)

I am sure no one who reads this gives a shit, but whatever.. go framework yourself.

EDIT: I actually bothered to read the article I referenced: "What you type could be native to the language or it could be part of a framework. But once you’re using it, it’d be a lot of work to take it out. You certainly can’t replace a framework once you’ve started using it." Word.


~Nic

To clarify..

The big thing now is to have everything congress does checked against its "constitutionality" (which is just another way to reject things you don't like.. how is some fuckoff senator from Texas more qualified than a legal scholar in deciding what is and is not constitutional? ) THIS IS WHY WE HAVE A JUDICIAL BRANCH! (though some argue against even that) JFC, Take a civics class!@#$%^&! This is from the new "contract [on] America" coming from the GOP. It's interesting, let me just parse this out a bit.

"The Congress shall have Power To lay and collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts and Excises, to pay the Debts and provide for the common Defence and general Welfare of the United States; but all Duties, Imposts and Excises shall be uniform throughout the United States;.."

It's interesting how "provide for the common Defence and general Welfare of the United States" is interpreted.. here's a quote from the idiots at usconstitution.net:

"

Welfare
welfare n. 1. health, happiness, or prosperity; well-being. [wel faren, to fare well] Source: AHD

Welfare in today's context also means organized efforts on the part of public or private organizations to benefit the poor, or simply public assistance. This is not the meaning of the word as used in the Constitution.

"

The second part is an editorial. It seems to be in direct conflict with the definition they've pulled from a "period dictionary". This fight has been raging for a long time, but it seems pretty fucking clear cut to me: the constitution directly charges congress with the task of "[providing] for the common Defence and general Welfare of the United States". Unless, of course, providing for health, happiness, prosperity really just means giving those with enough plenty more. I am fairly certain that was not what was in mind. I suppose a really good way to positively determine that the quoted portion of the US Constitution is to read the objections to it brought up in the federalist papers.. Some didn't want that in there because it DIRECTLY OBLIGED CONGRESS TO DO JUST WHAT THEY SAY IT ISN'T SUPPOSED TO! ...They didn't want the government to create a safety net, and to that end objected to that being in the constitution. We can therefore conclude, with very little question, that the quoted piece means exactly what we think it means. It's interesting how the right claims to have a monopoly on the constitution, when in reality the thing was a compromise between the same two opposing sides we see today.

Fucking assholes. You'd have to interpret the damn thing to make that paragraph be anything OTHER than providing a social safety net, roads, schools, etc, etc etc.

Sorry about the caps. This is obviously a point of anger for me.

~Nic

Have you driven a Ford crazy?

This find warranted a post of its own:

“Thinking is the hardest work there is, which is probably the reason why so few engage in it.”
—Henry Ford




You're welcome.

~Nic

Pop goes the weasel

Pop culture, entertainment news and the like are not on my list of things I pay any attention to. But today, I found "Lady Gaga"'s name under the politics heading on CNN.com (here). The last line was this comment regarding don't ask don't tell:

"We are not asking you to agree with or approve the moral implications of homosexuality, we are asking you to do your job, to protect the constitution."

That about knocked me out of my fucking chair. Well put. Especially well put, considering the source. For most anyone else, I'd ask them what specifically in the constitution they were referring to (perhaps the declaration of independence?), but I'll let it go here. Kudos.

~Nic

The Mediocre

I don't really enjoy the fair, for the most part. Sure there's plenty to look at, and sure there's fun stuff to see.. but I've seen most of it all before. Sometimes though, something catches my eye. This caught my eye. The image was taken with my cell phone, so it's not the best one would hope for, but you get the idea. This can be read a few different ways... I will leave that up to you. I will point out that it is a scarecrow (duh), and there are "crows" on it. The eyes are thread-in type fuses. I think it's genius, and was my favorite thing at the fair this year.

~Nic

Sifting through nonsense

While going through countless (well, over 5,000) text files of things I have written, found interesting, quoted, etc (I go through a chunk of the older stuff every once in a while) I came across this. It seems relevant to my post from yesterday. I am not sure if I wrote this, or if I found it somewhere, it had quotes around it. I googled it and found nothing, so I will take 1/2 credit, and if you find it elsewhere, let me know and I will concede all credit. The date was 8/24/2005 and the time was 12:32 AM on the file. (my personal archive goes back to 1993)

"In animal life, animals that travel in herds do so to save themselves with numbers. The animals that stray are easy targets for predators. With humanity, the consequences of straying from the crowd are worse, as instead of being killed and eaten by predators of a different species, they are cannibalized"

Later

~Nic

Freedom: Not just a feel-good refrain

It's supposed to be the thing that brings us together, as Americans.. the undying desire to find yourself free to say whatever you want, and the sometimes more poignant calling to stand up for things that you might happen to not like, not agree with or even hate. In my life, I've strived to support (whether in action, or just in thought) and stand behind the right for people to do, say and think things things I may not agree with.

It's been a terrible struggle from time to time.. one of my harder personal struggles was to come to terms with the implications of this; when I first learned of F. Phelps and his church. I abhor everything that is stood for by him, however in a fierce internal debate (Should I agree with those who want to ban him from his protests?), I decided that I fully support his right to protest the funerals of homosexuals. Not because it's the right thing to do, not because I think if we just leave him quietly alone he will go away, but because.. this is America, and freedom doesn't just mean freedom for things you agree with.

This fundamental, and admittedly difficult endeavor -- to support, above all, freedom of speech/religion/press -- should be embraced by everyone. There will be times in your life where you may be marginalized, but this freedom protects you. It protects you from the mob of fools who want to kill you because of, maybe even just an idea. Freedom isn't just about protecting the 99%, it's also about protecting the 1% from the 99%. You may note that this isn't really a democracy, it's a representative republic. And thank GOD.

That said, I entirely support the "ground zero" mosque. There are other reasons besides the above; most importantly, just as Christians are not, in general, murderers, nor are Muslims, in general, terrorists (or even responsible for 9/11). Should we bar Catholics from building a church within some arbitrary number of blocks near the Alfred P. Murrah Federal Building?

As a bit of a side note, I find it interesting that a whole bunch of people on faux news don't "agree with Obama" supporting the right of the outfit to build thier mosque at "Ground Zero". Thier reason? "No, this is about sensitivity, not religion 82% (181,955 votes) "
-- About sensitivity? Are they coming around then? Does that mean they now understand why a good chunk of the country (and specifically African Americans) is offended by the Confederate Flag? You don't have to be politically correct, but it's a good idea to generally not be a fucking asshole to people you don't know, eh?

Cheers.

~Nic

Can a rock make a GOD that cannot lift it?

There's been an awful lot of weird shit going on since I last checked in here.. The economy hasn't fallen completely to shit again (This is a good thing in general, but was against what I had predicted, and therefore sucks), the oil leak has been... capped? ..somewhat, with some leaks still going? Huh?, the tea party looks to be having a schism (which is neither good or bad news for anyone really, it's just what I would consider typical of a non-homogeneous group of bat-shit crazy angry psuedo-libertarians... They remind me of hippies, but hippies that turned into hippie zombies) and I still don't know if I own another duplex.

Note to self; TAB in the blogger editor doesn't mean over 5 spaces.. Maybe you noticed this post get posted with just that first paragraph. Sorry...

So the economy; The whole damn thing is stale. Job numbers up, job numbers down. The banking/wall street reform bill passed. From what I've read, it's a good thing. I've tried to sit down and read the actual bill, but my attention span is short in the summer. At least I can say that the arguments coming from talking heads against it are ridiculous: "If we regulate the banks, they'll just leave the US". I wish I had a dollar for every time I heard something like this... if we [do something sensible] then [whiny bitch asshole profiteer] will leave the country. We know that arguments like this are generally wrong, but every once in a while (determined by common sense) are accurate. In this case, it's fucking flat out bunk. What half-baked, dipshit bank would leave the only country in the entire world who has based its entire value, both future and present, on credit? Basic common sense says to me that: "I'd rather make less money and run my business, than stop running my business and make no money at all".

BUT What if they're right? What if all the banks, and bankers pack their shit up and leave? Heh, I hate to tell a preacher about religion, but... SOMEONE ELSE WILL FILL THE VOID! This is the same logic that allows some shit head business leaders to pay no mind to their employees well being: "If they don't like it, they can go fuck themselves. Plenty of people are available to work for me". But apparently this philosophy (Which is true as it pertains to employees, however highly unethical and flat out assholery) only applies to what these shitclowns want it to (*puke*). The "Job market", and market will fill the gap. (The quotes are there for a reason, but it's a long discussion. Google: Monopsony labor market).

So - The banks won't leave, lending will continue to exist. Profits will still be made; and at the same time, we've made some positive change to the playing field. I do think it's bogus that FDIC money is going to be basically the only thing to pay for this. Investment bankers, as I understand it, pay nothing to the FDIC, so basically deposit banks will be footing the bill. I guess TCF should have hired better lobbyists. (DISCLAIMER: This FDIC money comment is coming from a crude and preliminary understanding of the legislation, and is subject to change. )

For a good laugh check this out:
http://www.cnn.com/2010/POLITICS/07/18/tea.party.imbroglio/index.html?hpt=Sbin

I understand the blog post was "satire". What I don't understand is the satire.. This seems to be on both sides of the same opposite. Did that make sense? Well, if that statement made no sense to you, you're probably going to have a helluva time dealing with that bizarre Tea Party "satire". It's about as coherent as any drunken writing I've ever seen. I am sure this will not end the TP (heh), or quiet it down, or anything like that. Hell, I like having the TP around... it reminds me that I have a clearer understanding of the original event than a good chunk of the college educated baby boomer generation. (Re: Tea Party demographics).

My own corrosive half-hearted anger aside, the political climate is quite caustic at this moment in time. We've all been pitted against each other for no damn good reason. Speaking of reason, it seems to be largely absent as of late. I mean really .. fucking really, do these people really think that the sole purpose for Obama to run for president was so he could destroy the country and turn it into the USSR or something? Maybe life would be a lot easier for me if I started to ignore the gray, and see the world as completely black and white. Good and evil, Christian saved and Muslim terrorist, Taxes and Freedom. Conservative and Liberal. Bah; I still cringe when I remember how the Democrats/Liberals thought that George Bush was absolutely intent on destroying the country. His mission was to destroy freedom, and take the whole fucking world down with it. Get a grip people, get a grip. Polarization sells. Anger sells. I suppose I am a bit of a hypocrite since I'm clearly upset about a lot of shit, but for the record I'm upset about ridiculous claims, not differing views.

~Nic

Facebook, the econ and everything

I think those two words work well in place of "Life, the Universe", at least lately. I'm in the process of disassociating myself from Facebook (psuedo life), at least with my one of two accounts that I use for any personal purposes. I've taken some shit for deciding to, for the most part leave facebook behind. I struggled with it for a while; it was the source of lots of good discussion, and gave me a glimpse into how other people think (via pushing people to explain themselves). I don't, never did, and never will rely on facebook as a way to "find" people I've lost touch with. If I've lost touch with someone I probably did it for a good fucking reason (or the other party did). In the end, all FB really did for me was remind me why I don't talk to a lot of my old highschool friends. I gained nothing substantial besides a slightly better understanding of things.. I suppose things I could have gained by reading blogs, books, newspapers and Limbaugh's site.

So anyhow, I debated, internally, for quite a while whether or not to be done with it. The latest security breeches, disregard for privacy, the global "Like" issue (which has an end to render search engines obsolete.. if that happens, the actual democracy of the web is in jeopardy. Don't take my word for it, think it through. FB, if this catches on, could very well hold a monopoly on content aggregation), and the CEO's clearly adolescent attitude towards running a business.

Don't agree with me? Have some kind of layperson idea that "every other website has your personal data" (Holy shit, I hear this one the most)? Specifically, a good friend of mine brings up google searches. Now, I don't know about you, but I don't remember having to tell google information such as who my relatives are, what content on websites I actually do like (a web-hit is NOT the same as liking something.. it's a passive piece of information as far as google is concerned. "liking" something on FB kind of implies that you.. actually... like what you're reading. Far more valuable, and far more intrusive.) This is all magnified by the fact that, if you read the fine print, FB can do whateverthefuck it wants with this information. A bigger point that should NOT be missed, is that for google to share any information it has collected about you, you have to OPT-IN. The default is: deny, allow. The fb default is allow,allow.

Then again, I've only been playing the www game since 1994 (Anyone else remember downloading Netscape from a BBS? People on Fidonet went apeshit.. I had to get it!). My first actual internet experience was in 1991.. IRC and gopher. My BBS experience goes a few years earlier yet (though I was a latecomer to that). I hate to play the seniority card, but... look I've been around since the fucking get-go. You don't have to agree with me, but at least my reasoning is on solid ground, based in a fuckload of experience. You can use whatever in the shit website you want. I really don't care what anyone does so long as I don't have to listen to it when I am in my fucking basement (car audio), or see it when I am in public (PDA infuriates me, but I am not sure why), or be otherwise receive substantially negative impact from it (stealing, murder,etc). So get off my fuckin' back.

That being said, econ: pseudo universe. I am pretty sure we're about to witness another shit storm. I can't be sure (and I sure as hell hope not), but I've got the same feeling I had when the very first sub prime defaults started to happen.. it was pretty quiet. I heard about it briefly on MPR on a lunch break. My mind recalled something I had read on the motley fool about how sub prime package investments were a risky but rewarding investment... "Everyone's doing it!" I remembered the dot-com bubble, and did some research.. I was convinced, just after it started, but before everyone went ape that this was it. And I've got that feeling once again, I can not explain you would not understand, wait... that's a song.. and you probably understand better than I do. You get my point. (I hope)

Overnight bank to bank rates are increasing. I am not an economist, but I am capable of putting one plus one together to get two.. so LIBOR is increasing... this is what happened when the credit crunch damn fucking near took the world economy out of existence (For reasons that have been explained to me, I think I understand, and couldn't really try to explain to anyone else. Www.justfuckinggoogleit.com)... it's a year plus ago now, so we've all forgotten (and all hate the bank bailouts), but for Christ's sake, we were looking over the edge of a very very deep chasm.. the insanely low fed rate (0% to fractional %) saved us. Along with the wall street bailouts. I read it, everywhere.. any economist that had any kind of credentials insisted that these things happen, lest we all lose .. well, everything (except the well off, they don't really lose shit in a recession.. or even a depression, at least proportionally.. it ends up funneling TO them), but anyway, I am rambling.

We've blown our wad here. The low rates are ensuring that the same shit heads we had to bail out are making money HAND OVER FUCKING FIST, and the rest of us are, best case, in the same position (interesting to note, we've been in the same position for, arguably, the last 30 years).. but it had to happen, really. (BUT NO, we can't REGULATE wall street. Assholes.). If you make the rate negative (as far as I know, unprecedented, politically, and perhaps economically suicidal) you're basically paying these big banks to take your money. How will we unfreeze the credit markets if LIBOR keeps going up, and euro banks can't afford to fund day to day operations? What happens with a massive run on the bank in the Euro zone? This bank to bank overnight rate caused the shitstorm that was festering to progress in 07-08, and it could very well do it again. Could we end up having to bail out Europe? It wouldn't happen.. but anyway, I am getting tired, and starting to forget my points.

The big point is: watch your ass, because if the shit hits the fan again, I don't think we've got any more stops to pull. I've got at LEAST 50 more paragraphs of rambling to do on this topic.. I'll be back.

FB Status

Since I am trashing my Facebook account, maybe more stuff will end up on my Blog in the coming weeks,months, etc. Here's some stuff I captured from statuses that I for one reason or another decided I didn't want to lose forever:

"We used to say put a million monkeys on a million typewriters and they will eventually produce the works of Shakespeare. With the rise of the internet, we now know this is not true."

"It feels like all the people that want limited government really just want government limited to republicans" -Jon Stewart

I support breast exams starting at birth. I feel that this is a safe stance for a male. F*ck statistics and rational thought. If we start that early, the math will have it that a positive diagnosis of breast cancer will have a 99% chance of being a false positive across all age groups. Now we're speaking in terms that make sense. (I should note that really, I'm neither for or against any particular arbitrary age for regular mammograms, being that I am not a doctor. However I do have an acute understanding of statistics, and understand why the new recommendation was made. I find it appalling that it's being used to further the nonsense about government rationing of health care.)

In case you miss this (because of the absurd length of our other discussion, and your limited personal time) I wanted to throw up this:

"*AS an aside, read the book Outliers, by Malcom Gladwell. Very interesting assessment of people making it solely on hard work (he points out how much MORE plays into it than that, very... enlightening) It's politically as neutral as they come, too, I'm not trying to push an ethos with it, just a great read*
I think you'll like that book." -Nick R.

"Good at chess usually means bad at life"

It would appear as though Health Insurance companies don't actually want customers.

If you're only looking for what you want to see.. you'll only see what you're looking for.

"Bush will be featured as the 'special guest speaker' at an October 26 "Get Motivated!" business seminar in Fort Worth, Texas, according to an announcement on the organization's Web site." -- I have no comment either way. I just wanted to make a Bush post where I wasn't hating him. See, I became heavily politically interested in the Bush years. I said some rotten shit, and called some rotten names. I didn't really realize how childish it was until it started happening to the dude I like. It's ok to hate policy, but the pure personal hatred and adolescent name calling is for the Limbaughs and Olbermanns, not for those of us... who [at least try to] think for ourselves (and are not interested in watching our beloved country fall to pieces). Though I am not perfect, and will surely say some rotten stuff in the future about politicians I disagree with, I must remind myself of my lesson. I can't run for anything; I would only ever do so if I could hire the best of the best non-partisan fact checkers and researchers to provide transparent reasons for decisions. Not only would it be possible that I would have to adopt positions that would be counter to a party platform (thus seem inconsistent and allow for easy attacks and risk flip... flopping), I wouldn't be able to afford said staffers. In the Republic, "Plato" has a bit to say about how politicians decide to run, and therefore can't be trusted. That's a simplification (of the passages).. but I see, at least, a little truth in it. I can't seem to find it with Google, but if you've read it, you know what I am talking about.
REPLY from C.M.: your already talking like a politician. Blah blah bullshit blah

Formula for Republican platform: For any issue: first find the common sense stance Next, find the absolute opposite of that stance adopt as platform stance.
REPLY from Nick R.: The problem with republicans that you point out is quite accurate, but I don't think it's as much of a strategy so much as a bunch of idiots who unify in direction but not in ideology. I think about 3 of them occasionally strike a true chord and then try and run with it, but most of them are too focused on anti-democrat to focus on a pro-[... See Moretraditional]republican priorities.
They need to trim the fat, unify the message in a protagonism approach vs antagnoism. The only fortunate thing for the rebumblicans in office is that the current democrat agenda is so categorically opposed to traditional republican values that it's really hard for them to miss the mark with their base (except you, Senator Snow, you are simply an idiot) If the democrats keep shoveling gold-bars in the form of policy points, the republicans will somehow keep unified in principle in spite of having no cohesive message among them.
Although (brace for the cheapshot) I'll take the lack of unity (and arguably intelligence) among them over the current democrat strategy.../racecard.
MY REPLY: I can't speak for the best interests of the republican party... I have a very clear conflict of interest in trying to do so. I can say that.. as I have aged, I have understood more and more the importance of a two party, fairly evenly divided system... it's a check-and-balance in its own right.

"[Pawlenty's] new three-pronged plan to reform the state-run health care system is anchored by a proposal to let Minnesotans purchase health insurance plans across state lines." WTF is the point of states rights if you throw them away? ARGGHG!

"I find the idea quite intolerable that an electron exposed to radiation should choose of its own free will, not only its moment to jump off, but also its direction. In that case, I would rather be a cobbler, or even an employee in a gaming house, than a physicist" -Einstein RE: Quantum entanglement

If we want peace on Earth, we're going to need the rapture to happen.

Nic's WTF of the month: "[It's] deplorable to deny coverage to victims of domestic violence. However, states should be responsible for regulating insurance markets." North Carolina Sen. Richard Burr 10/6/2009

"New Rule: If America can't get its act together, it must lose the bald eagle as our symbol and replace it with the YouTube video of the puppy that can't get up. As long as we're pathetic, we might as well act like it's cute." -Mahr

I spent the day at a Science/technology/engineering/math summit at school today, and the most important thing I learned today (indirectly) is that we as humans must fight against any technology capable of "reading thought". Research is making slow progress in this area..primitive now,but growing. This poses the singl...e most terrifying threat to freedom that could ever exist and needs to be rejected at any cost. 9/25/2009

Unicycle thieves are quite easy to spot... But I always wonder about the people driving "their" riding lawn mowers around......

"Who would ever have guessed that we would be looking back at the presidential campaign of 2008 as a time of relative tranquillity and good fellowship?"

Getting mad about Glenn Beck is like getting mad at a teenager for rebeling; It does no one any good, and pushes them to keep going.

"Nobody cares about the roof until there's water under it."

Back to the soap box: We're so anti-immigration.. "They don't deserve to be here". A logical look at this would raise the question "Why in fact do WE deserve to be here?" Why, of course because of the luck of the draw. Remember that at all times. I know very few people who earned their right to be here (including ...myself.. I didn't have to do anything but be born).. Happenstance.

"Both the Government Accountability Office and the Congressional Budget Office are skeptical of the existence of defensive medicine and suggest that it is much more likely that the current fee-for-service structure of the health care system incentivizes the ordering of more tests by doctors."

The ideologue test: The next time someone tells you their big idea, or argues with you using pure rhetoric ask them: "What would it take to prove you wrong?" If the answer is "Nothing", you now know what your dealing with. Unfalsifiable claims are for religious texts, not civil discourse.

..out of sight out of mind.. it doesn't work for me. I make sure I read opinions of people I disagree with every day.. I always figured it was healthy to have an understanding of why you disagree with something, instead of just absorbing rhetoric and calling it gospel.

"Insurance companies need to make big profits so they can afford to give their employees health insurance"

Minnesota Gov. Tim Pawlenty: Speech could cause first-day "disruption" Anyone who's ever been to school knows that the first day, and sometimes days are filled with pencil sharpening, introductions, etc. Dickhead is just pissed that it's not political, and needs a reason to hate it.
CM Replies: you know where else leadrers of the country would speak directly to to child population.......RUSSIA. fuck communists ::
MY REPLY: Remember on Sept 11, 2001 when George W Bush was reading to kids in a classroom? What a communist. Craig, that is the most ridiculous thing I have ever read. By that logic we shouldn't build roads, because the ruskies did.
CM REPLY: Very niave!!! Che Obama wanted to adress the entire student community of America, not to read to one classroom of children. This guy is gonna fuck up our country. WORK FOR WHAT YOU GET! I am in no way well off. I dont have health insurance. All that I have is a drive to succeed. Thats the American dream. Not this "provide for me because I cant do it for myself" bullshit. Obama IS a socialist. Look at what socialism has done for Germany. dont try that bullshit "Bush Bash" retoric on me!!!
MY REPLY: Craig; I am going to just ignore the "Obama bashing" (re: bush bashing), and to go with your logic again; then it would be OK to indoctrinate a classroom of students, but not the entire country? I don't feel like I should have to defend myself, but I work for what I get too.. I am putting myself through school, I own rental property that I bought with my own money, and I hold a full time job (the same one.. for 9 years..). You're assuming my positions for me.
CM REPLY: I assume nothing. Only state my beliefs and my position. I believe that Obama wants to "redistribute" (like he has said) the wealth of America. Now, who wrote a book on such a ideal? Hmmmm..... I believe that was Lennon(and I dont mean the Beatle).
...

"In general, someone who had to work hard to overcome many obstacles deserves more respect than someone to whom everything was given. By this measure, God does not deserve any respect: he never had to overcome any difficulties whatsoever; he woke up one morning, found himself to be all powerful and all knowing, and proceeded to create the universe and mankind." -A.B.

It would seem that republicans have taken the tactics of fringe progressive movements (like MoveOn, and Cindy Sheehan), and brought it up to a whole new level. And the progressive movements will surely in turn step it up the next time they are not in power. At this pace, the south will soon get their own country. ("they are not in power" should read "they don't feel fairly comfortable with who is in power", because Obama, and the current congress are by no means far left of center. Despite the propagandize that spews from the Drive-By republicans.) 11/5/2009

"It is incorrect to say that human scientists are starting to understand the cosmos: rather, the cosmos is becoming self-aware. " -A.B.

"It’d be helpful to have an opposition that could keep Democrats honest, and not ruin the country if they happened to win an election. Instead we have people in tinfoil hats, making up issues out of whole cloth and spreading confusion and lies. " Zompist

Things that annoy me

Here's a non-exhaustive list of things that annoy me. At times, I feel like I am the only one who is annoyed by a lack of common courtesy since every time I comment about these things, people jump on me for being jaded, but that's ok.

1. Subwoofers I can hear inside my house, especially after 10:00PM. This actually pushes me nearer insanity than anyone really wants to know.
2. People who listen to loud music -- music I can hear from at least 10 feet away -- in a GOD DAMN PUBLIC LIBRARY
3. Children who repetitively ride their bicycles through my yard. ESPECIALLY through NEWLY SEEDED LAWN, and through my garden, ESPECIALLY AFTER I have asked MORE THAN ONCE TO KNOCK IT THE FUCK OFF
4. People who stop in the middle of the road with their vehicles to chat, unload or otherwise. ESPECIALLY when they know that there is traffic behind them (it is astonishing, the frequency in which I have to deal with this in my neighborhood).
5. People who honk their horns more than a few times for longer than a few seconds to get the attention of someone in a house. Get off your lazy ass and knock on a door. Better yet, use the fucking cellphone that's glued to your ear.
6. People who go the wrong way down a one-way, who are talking on their phones while doing it (This one I encountered leaving the library full of loud fucking rap music. I got pretty nervous)
7. People talking on their cell phones in line at some kind of retail establishment, or similar. It can't fucking wait? Not even a minute? Jesus Christ, shut the fuck up.
8. People who are rude to cashiers.
9. Rude cashiers
10. People who stare at everyone for no good fucking reason -- another common occurrence in my neighborhood. This raises the question "Well, if you're not looking, how do you know they are?". I have good peripheral vision. I've recently started to wave and smile at these draggin' pants fools. They look away very quickly. I only use this method when I am at least 5 blocks from my home.

I am sure I will come up with more. Maybe I can do this in episodes or something.

~Nic

I have to chime in on this, even though I am on a political break

The healthcare thing is front and center, obviously. I have my opinions on it, but I am going to stay away from that, and attempt to keep this a short, simple, unbiased comment.

It was brought to my attention on Sunday evening, or Monday morning (I don't remember which) that persons of certain religious beliefs can opt-out of the entire schema. While I think this is a very good idea, and I understand why it is in the legislation, I seriously question the bit's constitutionality. I hear that the big argument against the legislation is about mandates, and whether or not that is constitutional. Although I am not (obviously) a constitutional scholar, I doubt that this argument will win in the Supreme Court (If it does, so be it). I think a better road would be to question the constitutionality of the religion thing. Let someone say this: "I hate the healthcare plan, and I want to opt out, but I can't because I am a , and my religion has no specific problem with medicine" (for instance, you're not Amish). I am not certain that the opt-out would stand up in the S.C.

That is all.

~Nic

I resolve to be less of a dick

So, I made a few good old cliché New Year's resolutions. I've made some in the past, and mostly kept them to myself, just in case they didn't happen, so I wouldn't have to be reminded of something I already know. Anyone who knows me knows that I can be a dick (some would argue, I suppose, that I am always a dick. Probably the same people that I think are so as well). A few people who pay attention have pointed out that this has decreased markedly in the past couple of years, but there's some left. The resolutions verbatim are:
1. be less of a dick
2. continue progress seeing all sides of things

Explanations:

1: This shouldn't be construed as "Don't give anyone shit". I give people shit all the time, and get my own fair share in return; this is just fine. There are some key examples of what I mean, that I am aware of, and that's where the problem lies. It should also be noted that disagreeing with you is not me being a dick. Me calling you a "stupid bitch" in the middle of an argument, however, would be a prime example. Another example of NOT being a dick would be a caustic rhetorical Facebook (or similar) post. Stirring the pot keeps my mind busy.

2. A few years ago I started to really focus my mental efforts on putting myself in "other people's shoes" (It could be argued that this is analogous to focusing a nearly-dead flashlight on the surface of Pluto, then going there and wondering where the hell the light is). I have concentrated the results of these efforts on playing "Devil's advocate", which has resulted in garnering an even better, albeit seemingly infinitely more complex, understanding of my own positions and beliefs (And pissing a few people off). This is more of a personal reminder, but with a purpose outside of that: perhaps someone reads this and decides to try the same thing; if they don't already. (WARNING: Greater understanding results in exponentially more complicated questions. If you've ever progressed in a subject in school or otherwise you know exactly what I am talking about.)

If you don't like this, you're a stupid bitch. ;)

~Nic