2012 Update.

I have been wanting to do an update to my Presidential Election Prediction for awhile, but things change so quickly that by the time I feel ready to write, something changes. But seeing as how it is past Labor Day, the unofficial start to the campaign (seriously, why is Labor Day the freakin’ cutoff date for so many things?), I guess I should add my two cents. It won’t be as analytical as the last and more of my opinion.

I would like to apologize in advanced for not having as many cited references. Feel free to disregard my opinion as I do not have actual “evidence” of my claims. If you really care, try Googling it.

First, I shat my pants after reading this article. Maybe I am just overreacting. Maybe it’s like the Republicans saying horrible things will happen to the country if Democrats win in 2006. Of course Democrats were not, and are not as crazy as Republicans now. Who knows? I should take a chill pill.

Bachmann seems to have slipped from first (thank God), and the race is between Perry and Romney. I still think Mitt Romney has the best chance of winning because he is not as crazy as the rest of them. I think Jon Huntsman is even better, going after the people blasting evolution and globalwarming. Unfortunately, Huntsman does not have much of a chance in the circus sideshow that is the Republican Primaries.

The Republican candidates are giving the Democrats plenty of fodder to work with, but the Democrats aren’t working with it. The Republican Party took the nation’s and world’s fiscal stability hostage to create an artificial crises to get huge budget cuts because the Government spending is “Out of Control”, ie, the nation is in a Recession, therefore welfare spending has gone up. They made up a problem and then made up a crisis to address the made up problem. If you cannot get people to hate that party and vote them out then you have some serious problems. The Tea Party is less popular than Atheists! My father who once told “I share a lot of beliefs with the Tea Party” now hates them with a passion. The Democrats need to start defending their programs and aggressively attacking the Republicans. Polls show that the public backs the Democrats. Even thought Democrats lost to special elections, the issues that won were “Israel” and being a “Washington Insider”. In other words “non-issues” or issues the public does not care about. Democrats won in a very conservative NY district (my old district!) in the spring of this year. What was the issue? Medicare, an issue people DO care about now. Even though the Republicans won on non-issues, they were able to win on non-issues. They are very good at that.

President Obama has responded to people who ask him why he isn’t fighting hard enough, by stating that “he is doing everything he can”. I’m sorry sir, but we are getting a perception that you are not fighting hard enough. The debate always starts to the right and Democrats are only fighting to prevent it from going further to the right. Factcheck.org should not be the only place where I can find people debunking Republican claims; it should be coming from the Democrats. Issues are not enough to win elections. You need to win over the people.

For the Liberals, you need to stick by the President. I’m sooooooo sorry that the president can’t be more Liberal. But who would you rather have; a moderately Liberal President or a Far-Right President? It’s the same reason why Hillary supporters didn’t vote for McCain; they cared more about Ideology.

And for the love of God, Liberal, VOTE! For a group that is synonymous with “activism”, you sure are lazy. They complained throughout the 2010 election, but stayed away from the polls. If you were really that worried about Republicans, WHY DIDN’T YOU F*CKING VOTE?!?

Remember these people could be president if you don’t vote:

If Democrats can start defending their position and attacking Republicans, they can win the election. The House could change back, but the Senate will be an uphill battle. Most Senators up for re-election will be Democrats. As long as Bachmann and Perry open their mouths and Obama exploits it, he can win. Polls support the Democrats, now they just need to get the public to vote for them.

I don’t have a map like last time, because I frankly don’t know and I don't want to get another long winded essay on how bad the electoral college is. Thanks, random commentor, but did you read my post or do you just spend all of your time looking for blog posts that might be vaguely about the electoral college and post your essay?

POOL PARTY!!! Oh Wait, It's After Labor Day...

Well, another Labor Day has come and gone. I have burned all of my white clothes to conform to a nonsensical fashion rule and my swim trunks are in winter storage. Why are my swim trunks in winter storage? (and who under the age of 70 calls them "swim trunks"). Because of that other nonsensical rule governing Labor Day; close the pools.

I shouldn’t complain as this is the second year in a row at my Apartment Complex in which I have not gone in the pool. But I still wonder, why should the pools close on Labor Day? I know Labor Day is the unofficial end to summer and pools are a “summer-only” activity, but summer is NOT officially over. That would be the 21^st of September.

Also, down here in Virginia, it is still pretty warm in September. The average high for September is 79 degrees. That’s almost 80! That is pretty nice swimming weather! And 79 is only the average temperature, which means it can and will get hotter.

I know temperature is not an issue as Memorial Day is the unofficial start of summer and when pools open. The average temperature for Virginia in May is 76, three degrees colder than September. Oh, and thanks to the rapid urbanization of the area I am in, the temperature is actually hotter. Why do we have to wait until the end of May to open the pools? It can get hot at the beginning of May!

Is the Memorial Day to Labor Day pool opening/closing etiquette only in slightly northern states (Virginia and Up)? Does El Paso, a city with 109 days (30% of the year) at or above 90 degrees, really going to open their pools so late and close them so early? They should be open from April to October.

Can we please stop conforming to this unwritten rule about pools? My poor grandfather was a SLAVE to this. He would mindlessly open and close his pool because of the calendar, not the temperature. At least it makes sense when you look at Rochester's average temperatures. Let’s take into consideration the local climate and create a no-nonsense schedule around common sense.

No Wonder My Professor Hated Alternate History

I really hate this notion that if there was no Christianity, there would have been no Dark Ages, and humans would be much more advanced than we are today.

Well, if you don’t count non-Europeans, it could be true. That image above represents a huge problem in Western thinking; only the West exists and has ever influenced anything.

There was a world outside of Europe after 476 CE. I was fortunate enough to learn in High School that western learning was preserved in the Eastern Roman Empire (The Byzantine Empire). Then around 670 CE, Islam appeared and spread across the Arab Peninsula, North Africa, Spain, and Asia Minor. They preserved and expanded upon western ideas and gave us our modern numbers, the knowledge of blood circulation, and too much stuff to write.

Oh and let us not forget China. The Tang, Yuan, and Ming Dynasties gave us A LOT when Europe was trying to not die.

It didn’t matter to science that Europe was in the Dark Ages. It was flourishing around the world. To think that science is behind because Europe didn’t progress for a thousand years is highly insulting to Non-European Cultures. I think we as humans are on track.

Were the Dark Ages really the fault of Christianity? Rome was in decline long before Christianity became the state religion. Various "Barbarian" invasions? No strong Central Authority (besides the Church)? Lack of education? De-urbanization?

The problem is that some people just really hate Christianity and religion in general, but mostly Christianity. They just want to find any reason to bash it and so, they make these horrible overgeneralizations. I’m not surprised that this belief was in a Family Guy episode.

Anti-Religion assholes are just as bad as the Religious assholes. They are just as intolerant and arrogant as any Fundamentalist Christian. They need the same passion and devotion to a belief as any other Religious Zealot.

If being religious makes you an idiot, than being anti-religion makes you just as big of an idiot.

There was a poster in response to the first one from above, but I can’t see it. The page doesn’t exist and it is only available in a small size, so I can’t read the caption. I think it makes the same point that I do, but shorter.

Emulators and Bullsh*t Morality.

I should have just asked this question on Facebook, but I have to ask it again; what is the problem with emulators? An emulator is basically that; it is software that emulates something else (go to Wikipedia for a better definition dammit). From what I have seen in my life, they are mostly used to emulate older videogame hardware like NES, SNES, Sega Genesis, etc. to play old games.

Nintendo doesn’t like emulators.

How Does Nintendo Feel About the Emergence of Video Game Emulators?

The introduction of emulators created to play illegally copied Nintendo software represents the greatest threat to date to the intellectual property rights of video game developers. As is the case with any business or industry, when its products become available for free, the revenue stream supporting that industry is threatened. Such emulators have the potential to significantly damage a worldwide entertainment software industry which generates over $15 billion annually, and tens of thousands of jobs.

Here’s my problem; how is Nintendo losing money? I understand if people are emulating modern systems and current games. But people are emulating systems and games that are no longer available. I can’t buy a “Nintendo Entertainment System” from Nintendo. I can buy about 80 games from them on the Wii, but what about the other 85% to 90% of the officially licensed games that they had? They only way I can play those games is if I buy it online or at a garage sale or flea market, which means Nintendo still does not see a penny from that sale. They are still not making any money off of their original product. They only saw money on the original sale (and who’s to say the seller even paid for his copy?) The illegal way screws them out of money and the legal way screws them out of money.

But wait a minute, those people at flea markets and on eBay are selling a product that they did not make and are keeping 100% of the money! Isn’t that an infringement of intellectual property? Should we outlaw eBay and garage sales? They’re Black Markets!

I love how the answers progress on the Nintendo page on emulators. Basically, it sounds like a kid being corned in an argument and then saying “because you’re stupid, that’s why!”

What Does Nintendo Think of the Argument that Emulators are Actually Good forNintendo Because it Promotes the Nintendo Brand to PC Users and Leads to MoreSales?

Distribution of an emulator developed to play illegally copied Nintendo software hurts Nintendo's goodwill, the millions of dollars invested in research & development…

How Come Nintendo Does Not Take Steps Towards Legitimizing Nintendo Emulators?

Emulators developed to play illegally copied Nintendo software promote piracy…

People Making Nintendo Emulators and Nintendo ROMs are Helping Publishers by MakingOld Games Available that are No Longer Being Sold by the Copyright Owner. ThisDoes Not Hurt Anyone and Allows Gamers to Play Old Favorites. What's theProblem?

The problem is that it's illegal. (It goes on, but I like how the first sentence of each answer gets smaller with each question…)

One, you might be able to legitimize emulators. Charge a small fee for the emulator and another small fee per game. I'm not sure if that is even possible, but it's just a suggestion. (Or, make every game available for the Wii!).

Second, the “because it’s illegal” argument bothers me. There is no sense of morality. It is like saying the only reason why you don’t drink and drive is because it is against the law. The possibility of you killing someone or yourself should be the reason for not driving drunk.

If you want me to legally obtain the game in which you make money, then allow me to legally obtain the game in which you make money. You cannot claim that you are losing money on something that you are not selling. Again, the only way to obtain the game legally, still gives Nintendo no money. And if you care about intellectual property, then release it! Sounds like a King who patronizes art but then after ten years confiscates the art and won’t allow anyone to see it. People want to see and appreciate that art, so why won’t you let them?

If they are not going to give you any legal way of obtaining the game through them, then emulators should be ok to use. To me it doesn’t sound like an issue of money or intellectual property, just a blind following of the law. Of course I can understand why a corporation doesn’t want to be caught circumventing the law.

Did you see what I had done there? I looked at an issue of morality, found holes in the opposing sides’ logic and came to a conclusion. That’s more than what some people do.

I love the “It’s alright for me to illegally download videogames/movies because they overcharge me to play/see it”. The right price for something is open for debate, but that doesn’t mean you should steal it because you personally think it is overpriced.

I’m reminded of something on Cracked.com. An independently developed bundle of games was put on sale online and you could pay as little as $.01 for it. On average, people paid $9.18 for what should have cost about $80.

~25% of people stole it.

To me, that shows that this is not about takin’ down the man (it was an indie group), or things being overpriced. It’s about hiding behind morality to justify stealing because you feel entitled. It’s like the libertarian tour guides who thought it was an infringement on their rights to pay, take, and pass an exam to prove you knew what you were talking about before giving a tour of Washington D.C.

Bullshit.

They just didn’t want to pay the fee because they are cheap/greedy (although they sued, which is more costly. I guess it WAS a matter of principles. Ha ha, right.) I’ll talk about them more in another post...

Back to the movies/games; Don’t hide behind the “corporations are evil” shit just because you are cheap. If you really do care about the little guy, you’re screwing them more by stealing. If the studios/companies and main stars are taking most of the money and giving little to the crew, stealing means the little guy will see less! Watching a bootleg video means the theater showing the movie (who has to give a certain percent of the profits to the studios each week), means the independently owned theater gets less money! And the crew and other behind-the-scenes people aren't making money!

Hooray! “Screwing the man” actually means “screwing the little guy”! I hope you feel better.

One more example of “Corporations are evil so we can justify stealing” story and then I need to hit the showers. My one friend wanted to become a Residential Advisor and was going through the weeding-out phase. They asked a series of questions about morality. One was about an older couple who stole medicine they could not afford to stay alive. They flee town and make a new life elsewhere. The do a lot of community service for their adopted town.

Years later, they are caught; what should be the punishment?

The group decided that because they had already paid off the cost of the medicine through their voluntary community service, their sentence should be light. I mostly agree with that, but then here comes the kicker…

“Also, because the company could easily afford to sell the drug for a lower price, it was right for the couple to steal.”

Goddamnit.

Let’s refer to Cracked.com again, shall we? Let’s look at the article titled “5 Useful Organizations You Think Are Evil (Thanks to Movies)”. Number Two is about Pharmaceutical Corporations. The site argues that they don’t actually make that much money and that the reason for a high price tag is that millions of dollars of research went into making the drug. Sometimes, millions of dollars are spent with nothing gained and they need to recoup their losses.

It may feel right to claim they are evil and are milking us dry because they are evil (repetition on purpose), but it may not be right. Our morality should be based on facts and rational thinking. If you spotted any flaws in my argument, please let me know. It is the only way I can learn.

Alright, time for my shower.

Isolation and Intervention (plus those damn pacifists!)

I’m happy to see that the rebels in Libya are on the cusp of overthrowing Gadhafi. With a little help from NATO, the rebels have turned the tide in this revolution. I would be talking about how Republicans are taking this time to criticize Obama for being on vacation, even though Congress is on a month long vacation, but that has been done so well by CNN.

 

 

When posting that story to Facebook, I got a response; “we shoulda never been part of it to start with let them fight their own damn fight”. Lack of punctuation aside, I responded, “I’m glad Spain and France didn’t think that way in 1779…”, referring to their intervention in our war for Independence, which helped us out dearly.

 

 

Isolationists bother me so much. I’m not a full blown interventionalist hawk either. I feel that we need a good balance between the two.

 

 

I am a big critic of Cold War era foreign policy. I hate knowing that we helped overthrow democratically elected leaders (like in Iran in the 1950s) and installed autocratic rulers, just because someone was too far left and was about to nationalize some industry. Or we found ourselves in a war without really understanding why we were there (Vietnam). And of course we just love being bi-polar and buddying up with a country one day, then invading them the next (Panama, Iraq). We should’ve kept our noses to ourselves.

 

 

I am also a critic of 1930s era isolationism. Americans didn’t know they were or didn’t want to be a major world power with events happening overseas impacting them daily. We thought the problems of Europe and Asia were none of our business. No matter how much we wanted to avoid the wars, we were still forced into them. I can't believe that the same people who boast how powerful America is can't see that we have a lot of power in the world and that we should use it for good. We can't isolate ourselves from an interconnected community and still expect to be dominate in the world (ask China how well that worked out from 1450 to 1830).

 

 

So, what is the happy medium?

 

 

The US needs to pick and choose the right time to intervene. It should not be an all-or-nothing game in which we either never intervene or always intervene. Afghanistan was harboring/run by Al Qaeda/the Taliban. We needed to directly invade and remove them from the nation and disrupt their terrorist operations. All but the most non-violent pacifists supported intervening in Afghanistan (I’ll get to pacifists in a minute).

 

 

Then we thought Iraq was a threat and needed to go. They weren’t directly threatening us, and they had no weapons of mass destruction (as we can see in hindsight). It divided us to say the least. All that unity after 9/11 and world sympathy for the US…gone. (Iran denounced the attacks, probably because they thought the attacks were done by the Jews…)

 

 

Compared to the last two interventions, Libya was very small. Even not compared to Iraq and Afghanistan it was small. There were more boots on the ground in Pakistan taking out Bin Laden than there are in Libya. This was a NATO led air mission in which we contributed very little.

 

 

And who are we supporting? People who are trying to get rid of a dictator and set up a more democratic government. These aren’t the Contras in Nicaragua. They are like the people in Egypt and Tunisia who were able to peacefully overthrow their undemocratic leaders. Mark Twain supported the war in Cuba in 1898 because he thought fighting for the independence of another nation was a noble cause. He was bitterly opposed to the Philippine-American War in 1899-1902 as it was suppressing the independence movement of the country.

 

 

I think Libya was a noble cause. We are helping people overthrow a dictator and (hopefully) establish a democratic government. It was easily done with International support and NATO that allowed the US to have a very small role, thus minimizing the risks to our nation. If only supporting these movements could always be this easy.

 

Now on to the pacifists. You would think it would be hard to detest someone who hates war and only wants peace. It isn’t. These people are so far out of reality it’s mind boggling. I think we can agree that almost everyone wants peace and that war should be avoided. But there is that group of people who do not want peace, and they will always create wars.

 

 

What disgusts me the most about pacifists is that they are so anti-war/violence that they will allow someone like Gadhafi to kill and injure his own people protesting peacefully. They come to the defense of a butcher and act is if he wasn’t so bad and that the west is the REAL criminal. The west and specifically the US love killing innocent people because it gives us a hard-on. Accidentally killing five people in a missile strike is MUCH worse than a dictator killing 10,000 of his own people when they asked for basic human rights.

 

 

War is a necessary evil. Violence and Revolution are the last means for a group of people trying to resist oppression. I can’t believe “pacifists” could side with a dictator and slander the rebels.

 

 

I’m wondering if these are real “pacifists” or they are just anti-westerners/Gadhafi supporters. Maybe my anger is misdirected. Probably.

On to the real pacifists. I guess part of my criticisms in the second paragraph hold up; using violence to stop a man using violence to suppress peaceful protestors is wrong. Being non-violent means allowing the violent person to keep committing violence unfettered. But it always bothered me to hear protestors ask “how is killing innocent children going to solve this” as if the whole reason we are going to fight is to kill children. We’re not, but unfortunately that happens in war. I don’t like seeing innocent people die either and I wish that never has to happen, but it will happen (maybe if those people didn’t intentionally put a bomb factory or anti-air guns next to a school or hospital…). As long as we try to minimize it, I can sleep at night. Sometimes a war is necessary and we take no pleasure having to take innocent life. But violence was the only way to get Hitler to stop.

Legal Precedent?

When the death penalty is brought up, Conservatives like to quote Exodus 21:24, “An Eye for an Eye, and a Tooth for a Tooth”. The same is found in Hammurabi’s Code, the earliest written code of laws from Ancient Babylon, “If a man knocks the teeth out of another man, his own teeth will be knocked out”. It seems like this is the oldest form of justice.

I’m more concerned about the Biblical quote. The good Christian Conservative will have no problem quoting Exodus up there to support the death penalty (while also telling me that all life is sacred and created in the image of God, and that is why abortion is wrong…).

But what about “But I tell you, Do not resist an evil person. If someone strikes you on the right cheek, turn to him the other also” Matthew 5:39, i.e. “Turn the other cheek”? I’m not just trying to find a random verse; this is in direct response to “an eye for an eye” (Matthew 5:38).

To me, a Christian who quotes “an eye for an eye” is like someone claiming segregation is legal because of Plessy v. Ferguson, and completely ignoring Brown v. Board of Education.

Gee, it’s like people quote the Bible for when it suits them, but then ignore the parts they disagree with.

In Between

They seem to be a punching bag for both the left and the right. Workers of the Transportation Safety Administration (TSA) are America’s number one group we love to hate (after al Qaeda). There are jokes about how we have to strip down and let them molest us just to get on our plane. You can find dozens of stories of the Transportation Security Officers (TSO) going overboard (sometimes exaggerated), and humiliating people with certain medical conditions.

But they are really between a rock and a hard place, on two fronts.

 

 

On the first front: discrimination. If they pat down a blue-eyed, blond-haired, Caucasian, middle-aged woman but let a young, dark-skin man named Mohammad go through without scrutiny, the right yells at them as being overly Politically Correct with misplaced priorities (You know how much I hate this). If they single out the Arab-looking males, the left yells at them for racially profiling. They can’t win! Find people that are looking and acting suspicious. What if an Arab man is looking suspicious? Racial Profiling! What if a Caucasian Woman looks suspicious? Political Correction! Lose-Lose every time. You can’t do your job without being a bleeding-heart liberal or a bigoted conservative.

 

 

The second front: Following orders. How closely are you supposed to follow the book and how often should you take common sense into play and freely think? If a 10-year-old boy has the same name as someone on the “Do Not Fly List”, what do you do? Most likely, the kid has the same name as another person and is clearly not a danger. If you let him through with no hassle, you didn’t follow the rules! What’s the point of rules if you throw them out at will? If you follow the rules and deny passage, you’re some idiot who can’t think for themselves and thinks a child is a terrorist! I’m guessing there are some protocols to verify the identities of the people to make sure a baby is not a terrorist. Or maybe not…

 

 

Maybe we should cut the TSA some slack. If terrorist snuck through and killed 100 people, we would be mad that they hadn’t done their job. But then we complain when the follow the book. Maybe the book needs revising to include some more common sense measures. The system needs fixing, yes, but these people are damned if they do and damned if they don’t.