Writers Strike Video

Noticed that the Daily Show is in reruns? Wondering why the writers are striking? In a nutshell:

Who Does She Think She Is?

I think some of the Hillary-hatred arises simply because she's a woman -- and because that vulgar word, the one that rhymes with rich, is always available to describe a woman who gets a little too powerful, or acts like too much of a smarty-pants, or exudes a bit too much authority. That word isn't just a put-down, it's also a pointed question: Just who the hell does she think she is?

IQ Tests Are Bogus Anyway

Anyone else been keeping up on the Watson debacle? (If you haven't been, check out Watson to Africa: You're All Dumb. Lots of nice links, get the whole story.)

My first reaction to this is: seriously, what century is he living in?

Second reaction: Please, everyone, can we quit obsessing about intelligence? As a concept? The most important part of a person is not how smart they are. It's not the be all, end all, absolute measure of human value.

Yes, parts of Africa are messed up. Lots of places in the world are messed up. News flash: Smart people are also capable of colossal screw-ups. Intelligence is not an absolute indicator of success, and success is not an absolute indicator of intelligence. Not on a continental level, not a national level, not on a personal level.

So please, stop using intelligence as a crutch for your outdated ideologies.

Things That Amused Me Today

Wicked sweet.

All kinds of incredible random generators. Names, treasure, nonsensical swearing, you name it.

The only trouble with this site is that I can see how it might be easy to get distracted.

In other news: Clinton Airs Attack Adds . . . Targeting Herself

A Bit of Non-Linear Thinking

It occurred to me, in a discussion with a friend, that I try to see problems in technological terms. He brings up this political/social problem, and his political/social perspective on it.

My initial response is a political/social one. My standard reply to issues of this nature is Ye Olde Efficiency vs. Stability, the idea that as a system becomes more efficient, it becomes less stable, and vice versa. If we lose languages and cultures, it becomes easier to get things done, but we are more vulnerable to certain kinds of disasters because our repertoire of responses is more limited.

But then I realize, after thinking about it some more, that this issue is going to be completely transformed by technology. Once machine translation becomes reliable (which may take a very long time, but unless the human brain is some weird quantum black box we have no hope of ever understanding, it will happen) the entire system of language interaction is going to be dramatically changed. I don't know how, exactly, but depending on the exact implementation--well, at the very least, it'll become less massively necessary to learn the dominant language.

This is how I try to see a lot of social problems. Social problems are big and messy and unsolvable, because they depend on cultural assumptions and value judgments. And conversations about social issues are even worse--I hate discussions where you go round in circles without getting anywhere, and that's what tends to happen when laypersons (and politicians) have these discussions.

But make it a technological problem, and suddenly it's solvable. Until that technological solution becomes its own social problem, but those issues tend to be much more clear cut and much easier to avoid.

Listen to the Kids

Why is it, when trying to solve a problem that involves teenagers, we try every strategy except actually paying attention to them? Kids, too.

Sure, give seriously depressed teens anti-depressants, but monitor them, too. Talk therapy. Effective combination. Is that really so hard? Better yet, get schools and parents and doctors to pay enough attention to their kids that they notice depression before it gets that bad. It's not a disease that shows up over night. (Usually.)

Same thing goes for educational reform. Why do kids do badly in school? Because they hate school. It's really that simple. The system doesn't work for them, they don't do well, they don't see what the point is. Make it relevant, stop warehousing kids, and they'll do better.

This is hard. It's hard to take teenagers seriously, to take kids seriously. They're obnoxious, think they know-it-all, can't properly articulate what their problems are. But they've been there, man. They know what their problems are.

Against Principle, On Principle

I'm thinking, now, that I'd prefer to vote for a politician who had originally supported the Iraq war. Why? Because I remember the run-up.

No one talks about just how popular the war was, back in 2003. Yeah, there was a very loud anti-war contingent, and yeah, feelings on the war went south very fast. But at the beginning, there was a majority in favor of the war. (Wikipedia--sorry.) And don't forget--the Republicans were playing very nasty, very partisan hardball. They would have loved an excuse to lambast the Democrats for wanting the terrorists to win.

So when Obama attacks Clinton for voting for the war, and pointing out how he was against it from the start, well . . . he wasn't in the Senate until 2005.

Now, I like Obama. (Yeah, I know. It's called thinking.) He's a strong second choice, and I'd vote for him in a primary if Clinton were to get totally knocked out of the race. (Could happen) But I don't need Clinton to apologize for that vote.

Revolutionaries

Watched Pan's Labyrinth. Great movie. With help from Harry Potter and Zompist, it's triggered a couple of thoughts.

The basic struggle--political, moral--is between those who think that people are equal, and those who don't. However. The very act of fighting for the prior conviction tends to convince people of the latter.

People in power, as a general rule, think they're better than other people. Why else would they be in charge? Those who challenge them, then, tend to hold the opposite conviction.

But revolutionaries are not average people. And it's one small step from "not average" to "better than average."

I don't know which side I'm on.

I don't know which side I want to be on.

I don't even know which side I'm supposed to be on.

On To Something

Best. Theory. Ever.

Alberto Gonzales and Kyle Sampson (his ex-chief of staff) are gamers, and that's why they can't remember anything about the firings. They were too busy rolling dice.

Now I Understand Libertarians

Things that make me stabby: morons.

Paternalistic, moralizing, misinformed morons.

Dahlia Lithwick knows what the score is.

What I find amusing is how, apparently, Kennedy thinks that a medical procedure being disturbing is a reason to ban it. He has these examples, like if he can prove something is gross, then it clearly ought to be banned.

Because taking someone's heart out of their chest and putting someone else's back in isn't weird at all.

Incidentally, there's no such thing as "partial birth abortion," medically speaking. It's a scare term, invented by opponents of abortion to get people to squick out. Usually what they're talking about is "dilation and extraction."

Power Mad

I want to run for President, so I can bury "defend earth from the space frogs" in my campaign platform. Then, I'll be able to accuse my opponent of capitulating to the space frogs. Victory will be mine!

Not on the Bandwagon

I don't trust Barack Obama.

I don't know much about him. I checked out his senate page, I checked out his campaign page. I've been reading the papers, but I haven't been following the political coverage real closely.

What I do know pushes some very serious warning buttons.

He's always smiling. He says he's in favor of "hope," and against "cynicism." Everyone likes him. He wants to save the union, change the political discourse, rescue Washington itself and America from Washington.

Why does this make me uneasy? Because I know people like this. I know people who are always friendly, who are nice to everyone, who want to make everyone happy. People who are always trying to fix everybody's problems, to improve things, to lead things. Invariably, they end up wrecking something that I thought was pretty good to begin with by trying to make it better.

On a more general level, I don't relate to them. I'm a geek. I get along with introverts, with people who like science and shiny things. My idea of a good time involves using really weird dice and a bunch of textbooks to pretend to be in a fantasy world, fighting evil and exploring ancient kingdoms. Obama doesn't feel like "one of us." He feels like "one of them." Those people who think that they've got better things to do than invent languages and act like pirates. They have important things to do: play basketball, go to law school, become President.

I also don't trust people who say they want to save the country. Or anything, really. Because I remember what I was like when I felt that way. I went through a period where I felt like I had to save the world -- or that someone did, at least. I'd read Ishmael. Nowadays, I feel more like there are some specific things about the world that could use some improvement, but that it doesn't need "saving," per se. And I don't trust anyone who says it does, because they always have an agenda. Even if it's just "look at me, I feel special."