Journal Of Applied Misanthropology - Politics

Stupidest Thing You've Heard In A Long Time

mrlizard@gmail.com (Lizard) — Wed, 27 Aug 2008 11:15:24 -0700

Because, basically, if you've heard anything stupider recently, I really feel sorry for you.

Sort summary: Moron lawyer (wait, is that redundant?) writes in the Washington Post that media ought to be more concentrated in the hands of a few large media corporations, in order to save energy and free people from the tyranny of "too much information".

My reply:
Well, that's not the stupidest thing I've heard lately...oh wait. Never mind. It IS the stupidest thing I've heard lately, and I sometimes visit rense.com. Just so you know the kind of competition you're up against.

I can only assume, for your sake, that this is some kind of Swiftian "modest proposal". If so, my congratulations -- you got me, hook, line, and sinker. The alternative -- that anyone could be so dim witted as to think that the core freedom on which America -- or any liberal democracy -- is built, the freedom to shout one's ideas into the public square, should be deliberately curtailed and reserved for a self-selected elite, is terrifying.

As a PS, which takes more energy: Printing a newspaper or posting to a blog?

As a PPS, you might be familiar with the ancient saying, "Freedom of the press belongs to he who owns one". You may be the first putative "progressive" I've ever encountered who wishes to REDUCE the number of people who "own" a press. The Internet finally has made possible the realization of the ancient Jeffersonian ideal of every man as publisher, pundit, and pamphleteer; you wish to tear that down in the name of...uhm...tearing it down. As far as I can tell, you don't want to reduce what you call "information overload" (and what sane people call "choice") to achieve any actual goal, you just don't like it and want it to stop. Right.

This is the best Edwards could do?

mrlizard@gmail.com (Lizard) — Mon, 11 Aug 2008 06:49:06 -0700

A new age nutjob?

What is withDemocrats today? JFK bagged Marilyn Monroe. Thesex symbol of an entire generation! What do top tier Democrats get now? A chunky intern and a flaming nutter!

We need a better class of sleazoid, I tell you what.

Right To Keep And Bear Arms Affirmed

mrlizard@gmail.com (Lizard) — Thu, 26 Jun 2008 10:58:31 -0700

Let's face it, this Supreme Court has been one of the shakiest on individual rights in recent memory. There have been some good decisions, but by thin 5-4 majorities. Now, we have one more, again by the barest of margins -- the Second Amendment has been confirmed to mean what it says, that the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.

I haven't had a chance to read and digest the decision yet. Obviously, you will not be able to go out and buy a howitzer at Wal-Mart any time soon. Regulations, licensing, and so on are not going away, so the predictable weeping and wailing and gnashing of teeth (and fatuous comparisons to the old West, which actually had a much lower per-capita murder rate than 'handgun free' places like Chicago and DC) will be, as is usual for the Left, pathetic self-indulgent posturing. However, it looks the Second Amendment will be at least as protected as the First (to damn with faint praise), forcing states to actually have to justify their unending attacks on the right of self defense, a right the government rightly (sigh...) fear. (After all, if we can all defend ourselves, what are we paying the government to do? Besides which, let's face it -- historically, the thing all humans on Earth have needed the most defense against has been their own government.)

Speaking Truth To Power..lessness

mrlizard@gmail.com (Lizard) — Thu, 26 Jun 2008 10:25:00 -0700

Barack Obama says Ralph Nader is an attention whore. In future speeches, Obama plans to say "Hitler was a very bad man", "Bill Clinton played around a lot" and "George W. Bush isn't very bright."

John McCain replied with "Pancakes!"

What Liberal Media? This Liberal Media, Right Here!

mrlizard@gmail.com (Lizard) — Wed, 20 Feb 2008 05:49:51 -0700

Yes, I'm alive. And feeling oddly productive.

In any event...

CNN has issued a memo requiring reporters talk about all the "good" things Castro has done. Wake me when they begin a retrospective on Hitler with a discussion of how the German economy thrived under his regime...

(Waiting for the usual "Well, they're just being fair" and "How is this bad?" replies from the Usual Suspects, said suspects unlikely to extend same courtesy to any right-wing dictators, among whom they would no doubt include Bush II...)

A Short Bit Of Education Filmage...

mrlizard@gmail.com (Lizard) — Sat, 29 Dec 2007 09:40:14 -0700

A bit leftist in specific examples, but the core truth remains....

Using Your Taxes To Pay The Quack-ses

mrlizard@gmail.com (Lizard) — Wed, 26 Dec 2007 17:03:11 -0700

Sorry about the rhyme.

Ah, America. Where "we don't throw you in jail for believing in stupid things" has evolved to "We pay for the stupid things you believe in".

I am beginning to feel that 'slippery slope' is not a 'logical fallacy', as some claim, but an empirical inevitability, at least when discussing government programs in America.

Right, So Who Didn't See This Coming?

mrlizard@gmail.com (Lizard) — Tue, 11 Dec 2007 11:33:23 -0700

Not the first time, either. A man was killed because he was falsely listed in a public database as a child molester...and the murderer has no remorse, since it was to "protect children" -- an excuse for any crime and a justification for any tyranny. A psychologist involved in the case, to no one's great shock, blamed "the internet" -- an action about as logical as blaming cars for drive-by shootings. (Wait for it, someone whose kid was gunned down in one such will sue Ford for making the vehicle used once they realize the actual killer has no money.)

Look, people, it's pretty simple.

If someone is so much of a threat that he cannot be safely released -- don't release him. If the recidivism rate on child molestation is so high that lifetime monitoring is necessary, make it a life sentence -- perhaps with the bulk of the sentence served in a Club Fed instead of some Supermax hellhole, in the interest of compassion. If someone isn't such a threat, then, once they've done their time, they're done, and should be allowed to do all they can to resume a normal life. "Megan's Law", like just about every law enacted over the body of a dead child, is a bad law that serves no good purpose. It is the result of the usual demand that government "do something!" and the inability of people to accept that government is not God -- there are many problems it cannot solve. (Further, there is no God, and so, there are many problems in general which cannot be solved, and we would do better to learn to accept that our abilities are finite. The belief that someone -- god or government -- can solve any problem, no matter how complex, is at the root of most of the tragedies of human history.

Writer's Strike...

mrlizard@gmail.com (Lizard) — Fri, 16 Nov 2007 11:39:53 -0700

Someone asked me what I thought of the writer's strike. My attitude on strikes, unions, and all that jazz is that it's a matter between the workers and the employers, and the State should not be involved. There is no "right to work" -- there is also no "right to have workers". A "right" can be suitably defined as "that which it is moral to use lethal force to attain or defend", and there's no right to kill someone because he won't give you a job, or kill someone because he refuses to work for you at the terms you offer. Pretty simple, as far as Lizard is concerned.

The writers had a contract. Time came to negotiate a new one. The two parties could not reach terms. So it goes. This isn't a complex moral or ethical issue. It requires very little deep thought or introspection. I say "Hey, kid! Mow my lawn for a buck!" He says, "Screw you, give me twenty!" I say "No." He says, "Well, I ain't mowing your lawn then." End of discussion. Either he decides to work for less money, or I decide to pay him more money, or my lawn is unmowed and he is unpaid. We can either agree to terms where we both feel satisfied (or at least equally screwed), or we can't. Mr. Boole, your agent is on line 5.

In terms of the key issue -- getting paid for internet content -- again, we get down to the deal itself. The writers want to get paid whenever their work is used -- a fair enough demand. The studios don't want to pay those artsy-fartsy ingrates anything more than they need to -- logical in these days of massive losses. Eventually, one side or the other will decide they've lost all the money they can afford to lose. It's a huge game of financial chicken. How deep are the writers' resources? How long can the studios go without producing new, worthwhile, content -- "Who Wants To Marry a Millionaire On An Island During Dogs Attacking Cops?" isn't going to get them ratings. The internet is providing a massive source of new, original, material which can and is competing with network dreck. I'd rather play EQ2 than watch live TV, any day, and reality TV is crap. (Except "Next Iron Chef") Given the huge losses the studios have already suffered, I expect they'll cave before the writers do.

The other question, of course, is "Should you cross a picket line?" IMO, this is up the individual's conscience and his judgment of the fairness of the situation. If he feels the writer's demands are reasonable, then no. If he feels they're a bunch of spoiled brats who should be grateful for the chance to write for a living, then yes. (Just don't expect a lot of friends when the strike is over.)

(Of course, as side note, it is interesting that this is being presented as some sort of great liberal cause celebre, when these people are already making oodles of cash (An 'oodle' is about half a shitload, slightly less if you're using metric units). This isn't scullery maids on strike for an extra nickel a day so they can buy milk for their starving babies, folks, these are people who can afford to live in Hollywood, attend gala parties, and otherwise live a whole lot better than, say, me. (Yes, of course it's all about me. Duh.) This doesn't mean they have any less right to demand terms suitable to them than any other worker, nor does it mean they're not being denied their due when their work is re-used without compensation. But let's not pretend this is Haymarket II or something. It's about as much about Workers Of The World Unite as a pro baseball strike is. The IWW should not be expecting a lot of new members.)

Government: You Can Not Has Privacy. Not Yours.

mrlizard@gmail.com (Lizard) — Sun, 11 Nov 2007 10:41:00 -0700

Just wondering...why do people accept deals from government that they'd never accept from private businesses?

"Yeah...we'll, uh, pave some roads (maybe), educate some kids (poorly), and fight some wars (whether they need to be fought or not), and we'll charge you whatever we want, we'll read your email and listen to your phone calls, we won't tell you exactly what rules we're going to use, and we can unilaterally change the terms of the agreement anytime we want and we can shoot you if you complain. Oh, and we won't give you your money back if we fail to do any of the things we claim we need your money to do. Street's a mess? House got robbed? Kid's an illiterate? Sucks to be you, buddy. Pay your taxes."

Oh yeah. I'm sooooo feeling the necessity of government right about now.

UN Human Rights Council Major Pwnage

mrlizard@gmail.com (Lizard) — Tue, 02 Oct 2007 21:16:57 -0700

All I have to add to this is "I wish I'd said it."

And The "Politically Correct Doofus Of The Year Award" Goes to...

mrlizard@gmail.com (Lizard) — Mon, 24 Sep 2007 11:23:56 -0700

Well, the year isn't over yet, but the competition is getting pretty fierce. First, we have Roland Martin, who "wept" when he saw the Jena rallies, and for all the wrong reasons. A good reason to weep would be people turning out to cheer for thugs and bullies (and then go home and wonder why the leading cause of death for young black men is other young black men). I cannot imagine how anyone claiming to be opposed to racism would basically stand up and play the part of a small town bigot from the 1950s, ignoring a racial attack because the attackers were of his own race. Isn't that the sort of thing we're supposed to have gotten past? Aren't the days when a jury voted to acquit someone clearly guilty of violence because of the color of his victim supposed to be behind us? Evidently not, and Mr. Martin is quite cheered by this fact. I suppose, in a grim and disgusting way, we now have an equality of injustice. Yippee skippy hooray.

But the even bigger doofus, by an astounding twist of fate (that was sarcasm), is a writer for The Nation, though this current piece is posted at Alternet. In it, he argues that video games are turning our children into good little Aryan goose-steppers because (wait for it...) there is one where, in Africa, you shoot African zombies, as opposed to, I dunno, Chinese zombies or something. Apparently, the writer feels that only white zombies should be allowed on the screen. Of course, he then goes on to complain that there's not enough minorities in videogames, which is a level of illogic which is all too sadly typical. He also also claims that Warcraft "depicts Asian and black immigrant bad guys". I must have missed those. Which were they? The blue skinned trolls? The green skinned orcs? The furry, horned, Taurens? The pale, rotting, undead? (Further, much of the Warcraft lore establishes that there are not 'good' and 'bad' guys, but multiple races fighting for their survival and convinced of their own rightness. This is the sort of lesson you'd think a pinko commie liberal would be all in favor of, but I am guessing he saw the word 'war' and immediately went into palpitations.)

Of course, he's terribly excited about a game which teaches (read:Beats over the head with propaganda) the young and impressionable about the plight of "undocumented" people, one of my favorite mealy-mouthed euphemisms, implying that they have every right to be here but their paperwork got misfiled somewhere. Please note that the idiot claims that in Resident Evil, you "target immigrants for extermination". No, shmendrick. You target zombies for extermination. They are already dead and want nothing more than to eat your brains. You'll be perfectly safe.

Bush Demands Immoral Spy Rules...Oh Wait. ImorTal. No, I Was Right The First Time

mrlizard@gmail.com (Lizard) — Thu, 20 Sep 2007 08:34:03 -0700

Possibly my longest headline ever!

And this is why I oppose any sort of "temporary" or "emergency" measures, no matter how seemingly needed -- the government does not give up power easily. Anyone who says that the Constitution needs to be suspended or abridged for "just a little while" is lying to you. Period. We still pay income taxes, created to fund WWI; we still labor under the burden of the welfare state, created to save the nation from the Great Depression. Hell, California has kept funding their Drought Board even after years of overflowing reservoirs. Government takes, but never gives.

Special will-make-you-want-hit-something smarm alert:Those poor, poor, telecommunication companies, which only (sniff) wanted to do their (whimper) patriotic duty, being the victim of those evil, evil, men that believe the Constitution means what it says. Gah!

EU Politico Is A Moron. In Other News, Dog Bite Man

mrlizard@gmail.com (Lizard) — Wed, 12 Sep 2007 07:15:48 -0700

W00t! Two posts in as many days! All 8 of you (according to webstats) who read this blog must be thrilled. (Eight? EIGHT? If I were running a site dedicated to people with a fetish for saran wrap which smelled like week-old tuna fish, I'd have more hits. Sigh.) But anyway...

The "top security official" for the EU, Franco Frattini, thinks that searches for "bomb making instructions" ought to be blocked on the net, along with searches for "terrorism" or "genocide". Of course, this is pretty much impossible -- if you just blocked searches for the words "bomb making instructions", you'd block, well, the news article I'm linking to, among billions of other pages. Add in "terrorism" or "genocide", and you'd get even more. Apparently, Mr. Frattini believes in magic elves that live in servers that can sort good pages from bad. He is also, evidently, unaware that people who want to know about such things can find them trivially on web forums, usenet groups, IRC channels, and so forth -- not to mention, oh, basic books on chemistry! Like America's own idiots, such as Dianne "I Never Met A Civil Liberty I Didn't Loathe" Feinstein, he has no idea of either the scope of the Internet or the necessity of human freedom.

Just In Case Anyone Was Wondering Why This Site Is Called "Pontification"....

mrlizard@gmail.com (Lizard) — Mon, 10 Sep 2007 20:02:29 -0700

From a post I made on a mailing list...

Not understanding that there is such a thing as human nature, though, is a major problem. Man is not infinitely pliable. We are shaped by billions of years of evolution to be what we are. You can shape humanity to some extent, you can perform a sort of selective breeding where those least able to learn to get along with others are purged (This has happened in urban environments for centuries; during times when violent criminals met violent ends early, and there was no child support for those left parentless, those who left the most children were those who managed to avoid the axe or the noose or the tavern brawl, those who could suppress or channel their brutish natures. In the modern world, being a violent sociopath in no way limits your breeding, and since it is the 'responsible' thing to have few or no children, those with a sense of social responsibility do not breed. The results are obvious.), but you cannot create a New Socialist Man. You can only build with the tools you have, and any society of the future must be built by the men of the present, and we are horribly flawed creatures, whose sole saving virtue is our ability to recognize our flaws and struggle, however feebly, to over come them. Any social plan which fails to recognize that Man is Man, and that this cannot be changed, is doomed to lead to the gulag and the grave. Capitalism and liberal democracy work because they have become the best tools for turning human nature towards a rough form of the common good, where self-interest, shaped by education and enlightenment, work to create a civil society where most people are better off than they would be living alone in the wilderness. It is in my self interest to work for the betterment of others, to turn my skills to productive labor, to not seek to live as a parasite or a thief, to surrender (a very few) of my rights to the State, to aid others, even strangers, in times of need (because it makes others more likely to help me and to think of me as a 'good guy'), and so on. The instant it becomes more in my self interest to work against the system or shirk my part in it, I will do so -- and so will all of the human race, save a few at the end of the bell curve. (If there are sociopaths, Lizard reasons, there must be sociophiles, people who will work for the 'greater good' even to the point of their own self-destruction. However, building a society based on what these hypothetical sociophiles might do is as stupid as building a society based on how sociopaths act.)

Every attempt to make a "better" man has failed -- violently, horribly, tragically. Saying "This time, for SURE!" is not convincing. If the mountains of corpses, the literally hundreds of millions slain in the past century in the name of perfecting humanity, do not convince you, what will? How many bodies will it take? A billion? More? We are entering the age when slaughter on that scale is not only not unthinkable, it seems to be inevitable, and it will all be done with the best of intentions and the noblest of ideals.