EeewwSo, sometime about a year ago I inserted my flash drive into an infected computer and picked up a rather nasty virus. Yes, I know -- I've heard them all. Fortunately I had a solution on hand -- the antivirus on my laptop picked it up immediately, and I managed to track down and remove it from a computer I had infected and the original infected machine. No real harm done, just a nuisance.
But today I clicked on a link from a comment in a technology blog -- and clearly this indicates trouble, because what was I doing trusting a post in a comment? And it was also dumb because my whole reason for clicking was that I wasn't quite sure how the bot-generated fake comment related to the original topic. Still, to blame me is to ignore that this was arbitrary code that I in no way authorized, that took over my computer without any intervention from me. That is a broken operating system, without doubt.
But I digress.
I noticed the page taking a while to load, and the tab flashed a couple times--also a "java loading" splash screen had appeared, which I've never seen before, so I closed it quickly. I then got a little security notice down by my clock and immediately forced-off the power. Still, when I booted into safe mode, windows security popped up and told me I had no antivirus and I should install "them." And then another warning, and another. All fairly authentic looking, from a slight distance.
That's all it take to compromise my computer now? I'm genuinely amazed, and somewhat disappointed in Firefox and Vipre both. I'll be re-imaging my machine, and then scanning all my documents thoroughly. I'm also adding no-script to my standard extensions. And recommending Ubuntu to anyone who'll listen.
[ add comment ] ( 79 views ) | permalink | print article |
( 2.9 / 375 )Much like young boys who pee everywhere but the potty, Arizona's legislature has missed their mark again. Trying to prevent people from entering your state for work without addressing the supply of jobs and demand for paperless workers is like trying to pee without cheerios.
States that actually object to illegal immigrants coming in and taking jobs from citizens all have (and enforce) a law that fines employers $10K per employee per week for hiring someone without proof of ID and legal residency.
Anyone? Any one state?
No, that would bankrupt the many businesses that depend on paperless workers, endangering our entire economy. And admitting that would in turn imply that these paperless workers are actually in some way adding to our economy by doing work I wouldn't do for wages I wouldn't touch. So we can't admit that it's the businesses clamoring for these workers who are the largest part of the problem.
Far more practical: harass anyone who looks Mexican. And surely much more in line with what our founding fathers envisioned.
Peace,
Changa
[ add comment ] ( 75 views ) | permalink | print article |
( 3 / 378 )The definition of marriage varies widely across cultures.
If you're old-school-Mormon, it's multiple women, one man.
If you're southern African before the Christian massacres, it's also one man multiple women, except sometimes it was multiple women and no men at all. One of the women would be the "husband."
While in South American cultures there were men who would take on feminine roles.
Very ancient Greeks had multiple men in committed relationships, although the latter part of that period they would take wives and then just sleep around with men.
Meantime I know several people in open marriages, some of which are closed circle -- effectively polygamous marriages in small mixed gender groups.
The revisionist idea that marriage is normally between one man and one woman is naive at best, outright dishonest at worst. People are complicated, and so are their relationships.
Peace,
Changa
[ add comment ] ( 62 views ) | permalink | print article |
( 3 / 369 )I picked up a hitchhiker recently. Mark is Rasta, and he does smoke him some herb now and again. In his homeland of Jamaica this is not an issue, but since he's working here now he respects the laws of this land, and he held off on exercising his religion until California opened up a legal loophole for him. He got a prescription for marijuana, so that he can stay true to his faith within the law. This ties in well with the new federal guidelines to pretend states have autonomy, so that feds no longer bust pot-smokers when they're not breaking state laws.
But apparently being within the law is not sufficient in this state, since Mark was arrested a couple days ago. And naturally,when you arrest someone, you need to impound his parked car as well. And naturally, once you impound someone's car, you need to tow it to a different town than the jail you take him to, so that he won't be able to pick it up easily.
So I guess the question is: is this religious persecution, or just racism?
Peace,
Changa
[ add comment ] ( 76 views ) | permalink | print article |
( 3 / 375 )Shout out to SM, this was more fun than I had thought it would be!
1. Put your music player on shuffle.
2. For each question, press the next button to get your answer.
3. Write that song name down.
IF SOMEONE SAYS "IS THIS OKAY" YOU SAY?
Should've been a cowboy
WHAT WOULD BEST DESCRIBE YOUR PERSONALITY?
I feel you
WHAT DO YOU LIKE IN A GUY/GIRL?
Satisfy my soul
HOW DO YOU FEEL TODAY?
Weird Al Show
WHAT IS YOUR LIFE'S PURPOSE?
You're pitiful
WHAT IS YOUR MOTTO?
Audio Track 13 (Hotel California)
WHAT DO YOUR FRIENDS THINK OF YOU?
All that she wants
WHAT DO YOU THINK ABOUT VERY OFTEN?
Me In Honey
WHAT IS 2 + 2?
The Boy in the Bubble
WHAT DO YOU THINK OF YOUR BEST FRIEND?
A Pesar De Todo
WHAT DO YOU THINK OF THE PERSON YOU LIKE?
Everyone's a little bit Racist
WHAT IS YOUR LIFE STORY?
Zippidy-doo-dah
WHAT DO YOU WANT TO BE WHEN YOU GROW UP?
Lay your love On Me
WHAT DO YOU THINK WHEN YOU SEE THE PERSON YOU LIKE?
Portobello Belle
WHAT DO YOUR PARENTS THINK OF YOU?
D'yer Mak'er
WHAT WILL YOU DANCE TO AT YOUR WEDDING?
Fallen Horses
WHAT WILL THEY PLAY AT YOUR FUNERAL?
This is your life
WHAT IS YOUR HOBBY/INTEREST?
If you want me to
WHAT IS YOUR BIGGEST SECRET?
Drip Drip, Drip (Sloppy Lagoon)
WHAT DO YOU THINK OF YOUR FRIENDS?
The Unforgettable Fire
WHAT'S THE WORST THING THAT COULD HAPPEN?
Unemployed Boyfriend
HOW WILL YOU DIE?
I Just wanna see
WHAT IS THE ONE THING YOU REGRET?
Have I told you lately
WHAT MAKES YOU LAUGH?
Rocket Ship
WHAT MAKES YOU CRY?
fill me up
WILL YOU EVER GET MARRIED?
Jambalaya
DOES ANYONE LIKE YOU?
Hands Clean
IF YOU COULD GO BACK IN TIME, WHAT WOULD YOU CHANGE?
Suicide
WHAT HURTS RIGHT NOW?
Looking back on Today
WHAT WILL YOU POST THIS AS?
Lookin' out my Back Door
[ add comment ] ( 130 views ) | permalink | print article |
( 3 / 389 )I’m here today to talk to you about a special report I just received, most likely because I have an email address with ObamaNation in it. I merely found that address amusing: I didn’t mean to imply a stance.
“Barack Obama: EXPOSED! Copyright ©2008 by HUMAN EVENTS. All rights reserved. No excerpting or copying permitted without written consent.”
Well, right there they’ve lost me, because I don’t need their permission to excerpt from their spam. I live in America, which is still a free country until further notice.
But to keep this on the up-and-up, here is their contact information:
Eagle Publishing, Inc.
One Massachusetts Avenue,
N.W. Washington, D.C. 20001
1-888-467-4448
Website: http://www.humanevents.com
It's an interesting read, and I'd encourage you to email them for it. I'd give you my copy, but that is a right they can reserve
The report consists of a series of articles, the first by Ann Coulter. I suppose she really wrote it. “His speeches are a run-on string of embarrassing, sophomoric Hallmark bromides.” That seems to set the tone for this report. That’s Ann’s opinion and she’s certainly entitled to have one. “There were about 400 more reporters at Obama’s announcement than Mitt Romney’s, who, by the way, is more likely to be sworn in as our next president than B. Hussein Obama.” The reporters were right Ann, you were wrong. Nice manipulation of his name though, very creative.
Next we have Bill O’Reilly with a meandering bit about how African Americans have a victim mentality, thinking they are discriminated against even when they are not. The conclusion may be that since blacks think they’re being victimized, only whites are qualified to run for president? “So I chalk this one up to mild paranoia and/or a victimization play. Many of us know people of all races who are professional victims. They see slights everywhere. The world is against them, and if you live in the world, so are you. These people are tough to deal with. Anything you say to them can and will be used against you.” Nothing in here about Obama specifically, so let’s move on.
Mac Johnson is unimpressed with Obama because he’s all potential, no accomplishment. “For
emphasis, let’s examine a list of Obama’s major accomplishments (so far):
1. Simultaneously black and yet likeable to white folks
2. Made the initials “B.O.” cool again
3. Good oral hygiene
That’s it. He’s the Wayne Brady of politics…”
Ah yes, another articulate black man, they're all the same, right? He goes on to make a very good point about racism as a general
topic when he says, “But to see ‘black’ as a synonym for ‘oppressed’ is just a stereotype” Mac Johnson goes on to list the lack of oppression
that Obama faced in his ever-so easy life: “he was admitted to Columbia University and…” “...Harvard Law School…” “…President of the Law Review by an
overwhelming majority.” I like the contrast between that and Obama’s accomplishments, iterated above.
Next there’s Monica Crowley, who gives us Obama’s three recent mistakes. “Mistake Number One was his statement that he’d move more aggressively into Pakistan if, as president, he had ‘actionable intelligence’ about al Qaeda operating there.” This was apparently a mistake because it “ticked off his liberal base.” And then “Mistake Number Two came when he tried to fix Mistake Number One: he said he’d take nuclear weapons ‘off the table.’” I’m guessing you can’t have peace if you’re not willing to nuke Pakistanis. “Then came the Third Big Mistake. He was asked about U.S. efforts in Afghanistan, and he said this: ‘We’ve got to get the job done there. And that requires us to have enough troops so that we’re not just air-raiding villages and killing civilians, which is causing enormous problems there.’” I guess we wouldn’t want to increase troop deployments in Afghanistan, because that would end the war there prematurely, without using nukes.
On to Patrick J. Buchanan insisting that Obama is only in the running because he is African American, and sites Geraldine Ferraro as a democrat who agrees to this. Because she is a woman, she is not racist. “Barack Obama has a chance of being the first black president. And holding out that special hope has been crucial to his candidacy. To deny this is self delusion— or deceit.”
Now, Cal Thomas has a different take on Obama, calling him “Obama the Inexperienced” and stating “I am all for a post-racial, nonpolarized society, but Obama has yet to detail how that would work and on which issues he is willing to move toward the center from positions any reasonable observer would have to describe as far-left, even radical.” He also claims that Obama voted against banning partial-birth abortion, which sounds unlikely from my understand of the man’s policies — far more likely that Obama voted against a bill that included banning partial-birth abortion amongst more controversial rules, but I cannot check since he cited no source. “His uncertainty and inconsistency on issues ranging from war to taxes reveal his inexperience and youthful stumbling, two qualities that make him unprepared to be president. And now we return to our regularly scheduled program of the rantings of Rev. Wright.” Ah, that was a lovely dig at the end there Mr. Thomas.
“Barack Obama has charisma and charm but in terms of character, values and understanding, he is no Jackie Robinson.” Walter E Williams thinks that the first black president, like the first black pro-baseball player, must be exceptional, where Obama is only an ordinary man. Sounds reasonable, I mean what ordinary man hasn’t led the Harvard Law Review? But let’s not talk about the man, let’s talk about his pastor! “By now, many Americans have heard the racist and anti-American tirades of Obama’s minister and spiritual counselor. There’s no way that Obama could have been a 20-year member of the Rev. Jeremiah Wright’s church and not been aware of his statements. Wright’s racist and anti-American ideas are by no means unique.” Listen to a whole sermon by Wright and he talks about improving America, not destroying it. But even so, he does not represent Obama, so I think we can move on.
Michael Reagan has another angle: attacking Michelle Obama. “Nowadays she’s playing the role of dutiful wife and doting mother, but every once in a while her anger surfaces…” Apparently Michelle hates whitey (a word she has been accused of using, although video footage showed otherwise) and loves Rev. Wright. So now it’s not Barack who follows a traitorous pastor, but Michelle. At least this was a short article.
Robert Novak is another semi-famous name on our list, and he comes out swinging. “Obama in advance dismissed Republican criticism of his ideology or his past as the same old partisan bickering that the people hate.” Perhaps Robert is right, but does that mean Obama would be wrong? And I cannot concede that Robert is right, since that’s a pretty unspecific statement on his part. “John McCain as the Republican candidate does not like that kind of campaigning, either. But a gentlemanly contest between the old war hero from out of the past and the new advocate of reform from the future probably would guarantee Democratic takeover of the White House.” So, Robert is advocating mud-slinging because he believes that McCain would lose a fair fight.
Ann Coulter swings in saying that Obama should have been emotionally immune to the words of his grandmother, even as a child. “If Obama is sent reeling by the mere words of an elderly white woman, how is he going to negotiate with a guy like Mahmoud Ahmadinejad? What if Ahmadinejad calls him “booger-face”? Will he run crying from the table?” Obama tells us that his grandmother was afraid of a man simply because he was black, but Ann Coulter is convinced that he must have really been evil, and that Obama’s grandfather must have deliberately wanted to send Obama’s grandmother into danger. “Your grandmother wasn’t a racist, Barack. Your grandpa was just a loser.”
Gary Bauer weighs in, accusing Obama of hating Jews, because Obama does not think that it is healthy for Israel to bomb Palestine. “But nothing should concern Israel supporters as much as Obama’s foreign policy team, which consists of the likes of Zbigniew Brzezinski, a remnant of the administration of President Jimmy Carter, who, like Rev. Wright, calls Israel an apartheid state.” Well Gary, let’s breakdown that word. It means separated state – for example the large wall splitting up Israel into many parts. So I guess they’re right. Obama has pledged to work with the Israeli government toward peace in the region, that’s good enough for them and it’s good enough for me.
Ann Coulter again, on Obama’s book, “Dreams from My Father:” “Obama is about to be our next president: You might want to take a peek. If only people had read ‘Mein Kampf’” So Obama is a black Hilter, just waiting for his chance to fire up Haliburton’s internment camps. “For those of you in the “When is Obama gonna play the ‘N-word’ card?” pool, the winner is ... Page 85! Congratulations!” So a modern black man claims to have on some occasion been called nigger. I too doubt the possibility that he could be telling the truth Ann.
David Limbaugh weighs in next, “What has placed America in a falsely negative light to the world is the Democratic chorus of lies that President Bush misled us into war in Iraq; that he is responsible for the killing of hundreds of thousands of Iraqi civilians; that the United States is torturing and otherwise violating the “rights” of our enemy prisoners at Guantanamo Bay; that this very detention center is comparable to a Soviet Gulag or Nazi prison camp; that the Bush government is spying on its own citizens; that America, because of its corporate greed, refuses to lead the world against apocalyptic global warming; and that the heartland of America is inhabited by jingoistic, imperialistic, intolerant, homophobic, xenophobic, racist and reality-challenged Bible-thumpers.” Well, thanks for telling us what all Democrats believe David, but what about Obama?
Brent Bozell believes that Obama is incapable of being president, as he once referred to there being 58 contiguous states rather than 48, and “In Sunrise, Fla., Obama said, ‘How’s it going, Sunshine?’ He did the same thing in Sioux Falls, S.D., calling it ‘Sioux City.’” Certainly Obama has misspoken on several occasions.
Robert Spencer believes that Obama's suggestion that we attempt to find a diplomatic solution to the problems with Iran would project an air of weakness, so apparently only by refusing to talk to them can we ever hope to be at peace with them. “Would Iran’s Thug-In-Chief regard Obama’s invitation to sit down and chat as a sign that he was willing to ‘bow and surrender’? There is no reason to think he would regard it in any other way.”
And on that note we close, leaving me hungry for the hidden view of the man
that the title seemed to promise. Talking heads are all well and good, but in the
end it is Obama's actions that define his character, and not someone else's words.
[ add comment ]
( 225 views )
| permalink | print article | ( 3 / 397 )
Date: 2008-04-28
So, I watched the Golden Compass for the first time the other night. And i was left wondering what all the fuss was about. Here was a typical fantasy story, fun but not particularly original, benign family oriented stuff.
There are Gyptians, witches, and bears. Witches are obviously bad in Christianity, but no-one here is claiming they are good. Hardly raises this to Harry Potter levels of controversy, let alone the uproar it got.
Then there's the fact that human spirits reside inside animals. This person and their anima in animal form walk together as two hoalves of a whole, no person complete without their soul alongside. Odd, but merely interesting rather than controversial.
This is a classic good-vs-evil, liberty vs. fascism story. The kind red-blooded-Americans flock to every day.
I went to bed puzzling over the controversy, and in the morning it came to me. The witches are female, of course, and powerful women at that. But it is much worse than that, for the chief force for evil is not a witch, merely a human being and also a woman, a beautiful strong woman who does not respect the authority of men. And to top it off, the primary protagonist is a girl.
The men in this movie are supporting cast, sheep-herded by the women who obviously run this world. And that is the unforgivable sin, not the trivial religious statements.
[ 2 comments ] ( 133 views ) | permalink | print article |
( 3 / 477 )A response to some unfortunately unattributed criticism of my religious taxonomy.
Agnosticism is the recognition of the FACT that the existence/nonexistence of god cannot be determined with certainty.ie. Agnosticism is a decision not to vote.
That you don't know whether you, me or the universe exists doesn't prevent you from getting out of 'bed' or crossing rivers only using 'bridges'. You're reticence in deciding whether God exists is not especially admirable, although far superior to those who simply accept what they were taught at their parents knee.
atheism is the belief that no god exists.How very vague of you. God is better defined as "superior authority" since atheists refuse the advice of such figures as the Pope or Einstein also. In so saying, I am defining a subset, yes, but a subset that contains all proper members of the super-set.
Muslims are sons of Abraham, as are Jews. One son is claimed as legitimate heir by each side, and both worship the same God of War. Have you looked at their texts, their activities, their beliefs? There is no significant difference.
I admit, I was exposed to Hindusim at an extremely young age, my views are confined to what a child could comprehend. I am not mistaken in my conclusion however. There are dualistic powers which stem from a single neutral source, making this a monotheism at heart.
Scientologist do indeed worship a Science fiction author. Worse, he is a hack who stole all his best ideas from H.G. Wells. His lack of creativity and enlightenment are only matched by his sadistic sense of humour.
Belief in gravity and gravity's continued existence are logic-based. Since I don't assume the world is flat, I must have some argument to the contrary. Why? Because that's logical. At best, logic is a dogmatic and tired methodology. At best, a religious fanaticism takes hold and objectivism overwhelms reality.
Buddhism is as "originally hindu" as christianity is "originally judaism".Then we are in agreement! For Christianity has nothing to do with the beliefs of Judaism, just as Buddhism has nothing to do with the beliefs of Hinduism. Yet, each founder was indeed a member of the foundation religion. Buddhism teaches a way of living that is extremely beneficial to the human circumstance, the underlying reasons for those benefits are irrelevant. It is a system that works, first and foremost.
you are obviously not familiar with the scientific method or its application.Science has nothing whatever to do with the scientific method. Copernicus, Galileo, Einstein... all were men first, scientists second. That current Science raises them to the Godhead demonstrates a failure of Science to remain objective.
you would do well to at least learn to include a disclaimer at the beginning of your post indicating that "these are definitions that i stole from someone who obviously is ignorant of the truth, and who is biased against the only rational belief set (agnosticism)."You arrogant asshole. I stole my beliefs from no-one, they sprang fully formed from my head. You admit to being a rationalist, and as such I dismiss you as the theist you are. I will not tolerate accusations of plagiarism from you. Your cowardly refusal to vote has betrayed itself, you are revealed and impotent before the world.
I hope you're happy now.
you have left out what some would consider major subsets, such as gnostic christians vs. catholics vs. orthodox vs. protestant
Very good, you noticed. These distinction are trivial, I leave them to those who care.
you also failed to define the distinction between religion and philosophy and methodology.
You failed to ask. These are not hard and fast as you imply, just as pluto is a planet for historical reasons only, so too were many religions and philosophies misplaced over time.
All belief can be fit into the term philosophy.
Religion is belief about God exclusively. Other things (such as morality) are not part of religion, but are influenced by the human inability to distinguish disjoint.
Methodology is not belief at all, it is tools that change the human condition, irrelevant of the underlying belief system. Of course, such tools are seen as good or bad depending whether they move you closer to the ones philosophy. The scientific method is indeed a methodology, though Science is not.<br>
The religions I listed are prevalent in western society. Their origins are irrelevant. Notice I did exclude such western protest religions such as wiccan and pagan, since they are merely counters to the common paradigm.
I'm pleased to have an agnostic such as yourself respond to me like this, and I'm even more pleased that you read this far. Agnosticism is a natural state that a healthy intellect will return to repeatedly. But, change is inevitable among a living belief system, so don't declare yourself locked into agnosticism forever. If you don't know, then you also can't know whether I know. And I do know.
[ 1 comment ] ( 490 views ) | permalink | print article |
( 3 / 507 )
Calendar
