Tuesday, November 13, 2007
Scenes from my whiteboard, part 2
"Guys-
Please hit me with some cash for the K. lunch. Guys without jobs only pay for the people they're nailing. So, that's a second option."
-- name withheld to protect the guilty
Monday, November 12, 2007
People I don't feel sorry for include
Hey, news flash: every employer checks Facebook. Guess your dumb ass just found that out the hard way, didn't you?
Top 10 lamest tattoos
College Call Girl (henceforth CCG) recently did a post on the lamest kinds of tattoos out there. Granted, I am not "inked," nor do I know pretty much anything about the culture, but I certainly sympathize with the sentiment that if you're going to permanently mark your body, it had better be unique and interesting. Is there anything sadder than permanently embedding something in your skin that says, "Look! I do whatever the latest trend tells me to do, and I can provide the forensic evidence to prove it!"
(Aside: one of the comments in that post read, "He is a total douchenozzle." That is _so_ my new favoritest word.)
(Aside: one of the comments in that post read, "He is a total douchenozzle." That is _so_ my new favoritest word.)
Sunday, November 11, 2007
Your daily douchebag (11/11/07)
Congratulations, House Democrats! You've just earned yourself a Daily Douchebag!
I don't even know where to start with this one. I know: let's start with the embarrassment of pork that was the Bush-veto-overridden Water Resources Development Act.
The WRDA proved once again that if there's anything that brings lawmakers together, it's a bill chock full of pet projects that are of dubious utility. I don't even know what things are in the bill; all I know is that if Trent Lott says the bill is filled with, “good, deserved, justified projects,” it's almost certainly a bad idea given Lott's history.
Point being, while Democrats are being spineless pussies about the important stuff...like, you know, _torture_...they crow about defying Bush in order to do important things like give additional money to the Bridges to Nowhere. And btw Democrats: I hate you perhaps most for inducing me to link to a Heritage Foundation page. I feel dirty in a way that a week's worth of showers is probably not going to fix. *shudder*
But, let's get to the crux of their current douchebaggery. After bitching (rightly) about Bush co. and the Republicans' completely fucked up priorities (Terry Shiavo, anyone?), they turn around and come up with this gem. Because really...what's the point in training the next medical researcher if he or she is going to have downloaded music illegally? Even if they come up with the next Polio vaccine, if an illegal copy of the latest Britney Spears album is festering on their computer, hasn't the moral battle already been lost?
The Republicans think the greatest threat to our country is gay people getting married. Democrats apparently insist that, no, really it's music piracy that will be the downfall of our civilization, and we must threaten the livelihood of our educational system in order to do the RIAA's work for them. And everybody is pandering to their fucking political and financial base as we bleed $200 million _per day_ on a war no one can come up with a coherent explanation why we're waging. Meanwhile, China (authoritarian regime though they may be) is actually teaching its students science, a fact that _might_ just have some long-term ramifications.
I hate everything.
I don't even know where to start with this one. I know: let's start with the embarrassment of pork that was the Bush-veto-overridden Water Resources Development Act.
The WRDA proved once again that if there's anything that brings lawmakers together, it's a bill chock full of pet projects that are of dubious utility. I don't even know what things are in the bill; all I know is that if Trent Lott says the bill is filled with, “good, deserved, justified projects,” it's almost certainly a bad idea given Lott's history.
Point being, while Democrats are being spineless pussies about the important stuff...like, you know, _torture_...they crow about defying Bush in order to do important things like give additional money to the Bridges to Nowhere. And btw Democrats: I hate you perhaps most for inducing me to link to a Heritage Foundation page. I feel dirty in a way that a week's worth of showers is probably not going to fix. *shudder*
But, let's get to the crux of their current douchebaggery. After bitching (rightly) about Bush co. and the Republicans' completely fucked up priorities (Terry Shiavo, anyone?), they turn around and come up with this gem. Because really...what's the point in training the next medical researcher if he or she is going to have downloaded music illegally? Even if they come up with the next Polio vaccine, if an illegal copy of the latest Britney Spears album is festering on their computer, hasn't the moral battle already been lost?
The Republicans think the greatest threat to our country is gay people getting married. Democrats apparently insist that, no, really it's music piracy that will be the downfall of our civilization, and we must threaten the livelihood of our educational system in order to do the RIAA's work for them. And everybody is pandering to their fucking political and financial base as we bleed $200 million _per day_ on a war no one can come up with a coherent explanation why we're waging. Meanwhile, China (authoritarian regime though they may be) is actually teaching its students science, a fact that _might_ just have some long-term ramifications.
I hate everything.
Saturday, November 10, 2007
Your daily douchebag (10/10/07)
A Daily Douchebag to a head of state: Hugo Chavez.
It's hard to be critical of such an outspoken critic of Bush, but it not the case that the enemy of my enemy is my friend. Which is to say, Chavez is an asshole. I mean, after all, part of the reason Bush co. are assholes is that they are arrogant pricks who don't want to even listen to alternative viewpoints. That defines Chavez to a T. What kind of asshole interrupts another head of state at a summit? I don't give a shit if he's being critical of you. You're the president of a sovereign nation, not in fucking middle school. Grow the fuck up.
Oh, and stop trying to be a dictator, asshole. Vladimir Putin and Fidel Castro are not models to emulate any more than Bush is.
It's hard to be critical of such an outspoken critic of Bush, but it not the case that the enemy of my enemy is my friend. Which is to say, Chavez is an asshole. I mean, after all, part of the reason Bush co. are assholes is that they are arrogant pricks who don't want to even listen to alternative viewpoints. That defines Chavez to a T. What kind of asshole interrupts another head of state at a summit? I don't give a shit if he's being critical of you. You're the president of a sovereign nation, not in fucking middle school. Grow the fuck up.
Oh, and stop trying to be a dictator, asshole. Vladimir Putin and Fidel Castro are not models to emulate any more than Bush is.
Thursday, November 08, 2007
Revisiting old school Simpsons genius
Way too much of my life plays out like this. Whether I'm Flanders or Homer I'll leave up to you to figure out...
Wednesday, November 07, 2007
Public Dick
Don't worry...safe for work. Sort of.
I'm pretty sure this guy is following in the distinguished trail blazed by the likes of Ann Coulter, who by comparison is downright eloquent. I think it's even clearer for Dick, but I still firmly believe that both of them just want attention and decided long ago that pissing off as many people as they could would be a good way to get it.
I mean, really...doesn't this clip run like a badly staged Jerry Springer episode to you? He's totally a heel! They guy isn't even a good actor!
I'm pretty sure this guy is following in the distinguished trail blazed by the likes of Ann Coulter, who by comparison is downright eloquent. I think it's even clearer for Dick, but I still firmly believe that both of them just want attention and decided long ago that pissing off as many people as they could would be a good way to get it.
I mean, really...doesn't this clip run like a badly staged Jerry Springer episode to you? He's totally a heel! They guy isn't even a good actor!
Tuesday, November 06, 2007
Ron Paul
Having seen another car with "Ron Paul in '08!" written on the back, I feel the need to point out that just because Dr. Paul, unlike his Republican colleagues,
- is not an utter moron,
- holds a deeper understanding of and opinion about foreign policy than, "terrorists...bad!", and
- is honest,
Seattle light rail - it lives!!!
Egads! Looky what I saw on the bus today!
They wuz testing it 'n stuff. Are they really going to be orange?
Also, I was on a 2 Express bus tonight and it passed another 2 Express. I felt a slight tear in the fabric of space time as it happened.
They wuz testing it 'n stuff. Are they really going to be orange?
Also, I was on a 2 Express bus tonight and it passed another 2 Express. I felt a slight tear in the fabric of space time as it happened.
Monday, November 05, 2007
Soul-killing sexual positions for the lonely and loveless
That...that ain't right. (more conceptually NSFW than anything else)
Google releases Android
No, this is not the beginning of some bizarre science fiction movie. "Android" is their attempt to create an open source OS for future phone platform development. (aside: you expecting an ad supported free phone? What are you, retarded?)
What I actually hope comes out of this is for Apple (and AT&T, I guess) to stop being greedy whores and open up their fucking platform. Much as I like the idea of an open development environment, I have no faith that anyone at Google or anyone that uses their platform can design a UI any better than the idiots at Microsoft, whereas if Apple's proved anything it's that they are masters of the user interface.
What I actually hope comes out of this is for Apple (and AT&T, I guess) to stop being greedy whores and open up their fucking platform. Much as I like the idea of an open development environment, I have no faith that anyone at Google or anyone that uses their platform can design a UI any better than the idiots at Microsoft, whereas if Apple's proved anything it's that they are masters of the user interface.
NYT atheism blog post
I happened to notice there was a New York Times blog post on, not actually atheism, per se, but on the question of an omnipotent god allowing evil in the world and its effect on various religious and areligious philosophers. Or the ye olde "Why do bad things happen to good people?" question (isn't the reverse question just as interesting?).
It's an amusing exercise, but if you're arguing about atheism, it's absolutely the wrong issue to be hung up on. Sure, it's one nail in the coffin of theistic reasoning, but it's only one nail, and frankly, I don't even think it's that compelling. As several of the authors on both sides of the argument eventually, circuitously realize, "good" and "bad" are subjective words that depend on some kind of moral framework that just ends up begging the question. Where do our morals come from? How do we judge that which is good or bad?
The kook Flew decides that this question is the damning indictment of atheism and, apparently, has based his "magical transformation" from an atheist philosopher into some kind of born-again weirdo on it. Frankly, I think if you spend your life trying to make obsessively clean logical arguments on either side of the issue, there is probably something basically wrong with you from the get-go (and no, I don't think the occasional blog post qualifies). But, that's beside the point.
Anyway, the argument that Flew brings up is basically, "Where do you get your morals from? Doesn't the fact that you have some moral compass at all suggest something transcendental about the notion of morals in the first place? More generally, how can notions of truth, justice, morality, etc. arise from a purely materialistic world? What is the thing (i.e., you) that's making moral judgments anyway? Aren't you just a collection of chemicals?"
...which brings us to the _actual_ question we're apparently talking about, which has very little to do with morality. It is the venerable mind-body problem, and it has a long and distinguished history. It amounts, basically, to, "How do minds arise out of bodies?" Which is to say, where does the "you" that's sitting behind your eyes, perceiving the world and making judgments, come from?
And, you know, it _is_ a problem. At some fundamental level, I don't really have an answer for it. I think it's telling that you can get very compelling materialistic explanations out of brain research. How can you maintain the notion of a soul when damaging various parts of people's brains (don't do that purposefully, incidentally) can result in drastic personality differences? Look at the case of Phineas Gage, whose personality became _drastically_ different when a pole went through part of his brain. Doesn't that suggest, at the very least, that some piece of what we consider the "mind" does indeed arise out of the material, physical structure of the brain? And doesn't that drive a similar pole through the idea of an eternal soul? What are you if I can, in some fundamental way, change that you by changing your brain?
At the same time, I don't think even those experiments can explain you to _yourself_. Maybe it can tell you about other people, but on some level, it can't tel you about you. In other words, I perceive myself: there's some kind of personality behind these eyes looking at the world, making judgments, etc. Where does that come from? Objective observation fails here, because in this case the observer and the observed are inseparable. I can't objectively observe myself. It's quintessentially and philosophically impossible. There's always going to be some piece of me that is playing the part of "observer," and fundamentally that observer cannot observe itself. Sure, you can be introspective about your emotions, your thoughts, wonder to yourself, "Why do I keep thinking about pop tarts?", etc., but the point is, there's some part of you observing those thoughts, and it's that part...whatever it is...that cannot be observed by itself.
So, the scientific method reaches its limits here. Just because that's true, however, doesn't mean that materialistic philosophy is damned. It just means that there's something it has trouble answering. Note that it doesn't give a _wrong_ answer (as theists have so often historically done...irrefutably proved wrong, incidentally, not by their own reasoning processes but by scientists)...it just has a hard time coming up with one. I'm okay with that. Maybe it's a fundamentally impossible problem. There are lots of things that are impossible in the world. Heisenberg's uncertainty principle comes to mind: you can't, no matter how hard you try, figure out both the position and the momentum of a quantum particle no matter how what. Maybe the same is true of you figuring out yourself.
I still think that it's better framework to reason about the world than magical, unjustifiable thinking. Sure, religious people have an answer to this question ("well it's your _soul_, silly!"), but, let's be honest, that's retarded. Or, less inflammatorily, it's unjustified. It's an explanation pulled out of a hat that's true because someone, probably in Rome, wearing that silly hat, said it's true.
And that's a ridiculous and stupid basis for any kind of understanding of the world.
It's an amusing exercise, but if you're arguing about atheism, it's absolutely the wrong issue to be hung up on. Sure, it's one nail in the coffin of theistic reasoning, but it's only one nail, and frankly, I don't even think it's that compelling. As several of the authors on both sides of the argument eventually, circuitously realize, "good" and "bad" are subjective words that depend on some kind of moral framework that just ends up begging the question. Where do our morals come from? How do we judge that which is good or bad?
The kook Flew decides that this question is the damning indictment of atheism and, apparently, has based his "magical transformation" from an atheist philosopher into some kind of born-again weirdo on it. Frankly, I think if you spend your life trying to make obsessively clean logical arguments on either side of the issue, there is probably something basically wrong with you from the get-go (and no, I don't think the occasional blog post qualifies). But, that's beside the point.
Anyway, the argument that Flew brings up is basically, "Where do you get your morals from? Doesn't the fact that you have some moral compass at all suggest something transcendental about the notion of morals in the first place? More generally, how can notions of truth, justice, morality, etc. arise from a purely materialistic world? What is the thing (i.e., you) that's making moral judgments anyway? Aren't you just a collection of chemicals?"
...which brings us to the _actual_ question we're apparently talking about, which has very little to do with morality. It is the venerable mind-body problem, and it has a long and distinguished history. It amounts, basically, to, "How do minds arise out of bodies?" Which is to say, where does the "you" that's sitting behind your eyes, perceiving the world and making judgments, come from?
And, you know, it _is_ a problem. At some fundamental level, I don't really have an answer for it. I think it's telling that you can get very compelling materialistic explanations out of brain research. How can you maintain the notion of a soul when damaging various parts of people's brains (don't do that purposefully, incidentally) can result in drastic personality differences? Look at the case of Phineas Gage, whose personality became _drastically_ different when a pole went through part of his brain. Doesn't that suggest, at the very least, that some piece of what we consider the "mind" does indeed arise out of the material, physical structure of the brain? And doesn't that drive a similar pole through the idea of an eternal soul? What are you if I can, in some fundamental way, change that you by changing your brain?
At the same time, I don't think even those experiments can explain you to _yourself_. Maybe it can tell you about other people, but on some level, it can't tel you about you. In other words, I perceive myself: there's some kind of personality behind these eyes looking at the world, making judgments, etc. Where does that come from? Objective observation fails here, because in this case the observer and the observed are inseparable. I can't objectively observe myself. It's quintessentially and philosophically impossible. There's always going to be some piece of me that is playing the part of "observer," and fundamentally that observer cannot observe itself. Sure, you can be introspective about your emotions, your thoughts, wonder to yourself, "Why do I keep thinking about pop tarts?", etc., but the point is, there's some part of you observing those thoughts, and it's that part...whatever it is...that cannot be observed by itself.
So, the scientific method reaches its limits here. Just because that's true, however, doesn't mean that materialistic philosophy is damned. It just means that there's something it has trouble answering. Note that it doesn't give a _wrong_ answer (as theists have so often historically done...irrefutably proved wrong, incidentally, not by their own reasoning processes but by scientists)...it just has a hard time coming up with one. I'm okay with that. Maybe it's a fundamentally impossible problem. There are lots of things that are impossible in the world. Heisenberg's uncertainty principle comes to mind: you can't, no matter how hard you try, figure out both the position and the momentum of a quantum particle no matter how what. Maybe the same is true of you figuring out yourself.
I still think that it's better framework to reason about the world than magical, unjustifiable thinking. Sure, religious people have an answer to this question ("well it's your _soul_, silly!"), but, let's be honest, that's retarded. Or, less inflammatorily, it's unjustified. It's an explanation pulled out of a hat that's true because someone, probably in Rome, wearing that silly hat, said it's true.
And that's a ridiculous and stupid basis for any kind of understanding of the world.
Sunday, November 04, 2007
Written on the whiteboard on my fridge this morning
"I was more surprised to learn that Shirley MacLaine had a house here than that Dennis Kucinich thought he saw a UFO here." -- author unknown
Saturday, November 03, 2007
Benny Lava redux
Okay, so the Benny Lava _actual_ lyrics are almost as weird as the transliterated ones.
Also, I think this is a far better sound track for the original video.
Also, I think this is a far better sound track for the original video.
How the fed works
I was googling around for information on how the fed and inflation work, and after wading through a lot of crap, this howstuffworks link was pretty much the best resource I found. It's fairly simple yet thorough.
Just thought I'd share.
Just thought I'd share.
Our gigantic asses are sinking the boats at DisneyLand
We, as a country, should be fucking mortified by this. We're sinking the "It's a Small World" boats, people! SINKING THEM! BECAUSE OUR ASSES ARE TOO BIG!
Jesus. Fucking. Tapdancing. Christ. If there is a more appropriate metaphor for the modern American mentality, I certainly can't think of it.
Jesus. Fucking. Tapdancing. Christ. If there is a more appropriate metaphor for the modern American mentality, I certainly can't think of it.
Your daily douchebag (11/03/07)
A Daily Douchebag to Pervez Musharraf for being a typical douchebag dictator and declaring marshal law when the few checks and balances left in his country weren't being nice to him.
It makes me profoundly sad to see these cases where a country boots out an imperial power (England) only to descend into their own home-brewed authoritarian regime. Having watched V for Vendetta recently doesn't help matters.
Update: Musharraf: still a douchebag. Also, I can't help but see parallels here between Musharraf's rationale for declaring martial law and the Bush v. Gore decision. Both amount to saying, "we don't have time to actually sort out the legalities because not having a President _right now_ is just too dangerous!" Which is, of course, horse shit.
It makes me profoundly sad to see these cases where a country boots out an imperial power (England) only to descend into their own home-brewed authoritarian regime. Having watched V for Vendetta recently doesn't help matters.
Update: Musharraf: still a douchebag. Also, I can't help but see parallels here between Musharraf's rationale for declaring martial law and the Bush v. Gore decision. Both amount to saying, "we don't have time to actually sort out the legalities because not having a President _right now_ is just too dangerous!" Which is, of course, horse shit.
Thursday, November 01, 2007
Benny Lava
Another amusing purposeful mistranslation of an Indian music video.
I'm pretty sure the guy stole some moves from Michael Jackson. Back when MJ had, you know, organic parts.
I'm pretty sure the guy stole some moves from Michael Jackson. Back when MJ had, you know, organic parts.
Tuesday, October 30, 2007
Monday, October 29, 2007
If There Were a God... (10/29/07)
An "If There Were a God" that needs no explanation. Or more accurately, there is no explanation on earth that can justify it.
Sunday, October 28, 2007
The "prematurely rich" ain't sasified...
I don't really find this at all surprising. The eMillionaires quite often aren't in it for the money, per se, at least in the sense that they aren't after money just to engage in conspicuous consumption. Money is just a way to keep score. The fact that you can use it to buy jets, mansions, etc. is somewhat irrelevant. They do it because the business itself is interesting.
Now, of course, you can ask: okay, but would they still be interested if there _weren't_ a huge amount of money at stake? No, probably not. The money is part of it. But what I think makes this interesting to these guys are the dynamics the money makes, not the payoff. In other words, because consumers and potential clients value money so much, they choose (relatively) carefully what they want to buy with it, and it's the challenge of getting the money out of those consumers and clients that appeals to these guys much more than the fact that you get that money and the ability to spend it in the end (if your business is successful).
Point being, we always assume money is the prime motivator of people. Or, at least, it is a universal currency that allows you to get the (presumed material) things you want. I think that's an oversimplification. People want things out of their lifestyle that you can't really buy, or at least it doesn't really make sense to think of in monetary terms. Does it really make sense to think of "buying" your way into working into a startup that excites and challenges you? Not really...not in the traditional sense. Therefore, I don't think it makes sense to talk about maximizing people's income as a proxy for maximizing their happiness. (and it makes even less sense to talk about a stock market index as a proxy for the well-being of a country, but that's beyond my scope for the moment)
So here's the question: can you make an economic model out of that? Interestingly, it's not even "money + leisure," although I think leisure time is another important factor that should be considered when measuring a society's well-being. It's much more a question of, to use an overloaded term, freedom. To what degree to people have the freedom to pursue the things that make them happy? To what degree can they pursue their happiness, you might say...
Now, of course, you can ask: okay, but would they still be interested if there _weren't_ a huge amount of money at stake? No, probably not. The money is part of it. But what I think makes this interesting to these guys are the dynamics the money makes, not the payoff. In other words, because consumers and potential clients value money so much, they choose (relatively) carefully what they want to buy with it, and it's the challenge of getting the money out of those consumers and clients that appeals to these guys much more than the fact that you get that money and the ability to spend it in the end (if your business is successful).
Point being, we always assume money is the prime motivator of people. Or, at least, it is a universal currency that allows you to get the (presumed material) things you want. I think that's an oversimplification. People want things out of their lifestyle that you can't really buy, or at least it doesn't really make sense to think of in monetary terms. Does it really make sense to think of "buying" your way into working into a startup that excites and challenges you? Not really...not in the traditional sense. Therefore, I don't think it makes sense to talk about maximizing people's income as a proxy for maximizing their happiness. (and it makes even less sense to talk about a stock market index as a proxy for the well-being of a country, but that's beyond my scope for the moment)
So here's the question: can you make an economic model out of that? Interestingly, it's not even "money + leisure," although I think leisure time is another important factor that should be considered when measuring a society's well-being. It's much more a question of, to use an overloaded term, freedom. To what degree to people have the freedom to pursue the things that make them happy? To what degree can they pursue their happiness, you might say...
Saturday, October 27, 2007
Cheney and Obama related?!
No, apparently this isn't a joke. Go back far enough, and Obama and Cheney are related.
Isn't this a sign of the apocalypse?
Isn't this a sign of the apocalypse?
Thursday, October 25, 2007
Wednesday, October 24, 2007
Girl eye chart
This has to be the most frustrating eye chart ever. If you're a heterosexual guy, at least...
Monday, October 22, 2007
Menacing plastic garbage island
Were you aware there's an island made completely out of garbage that's twice the size of Texas floating around the Pacific? This is a problem. Literally, a big problem. It's not like there's "some" garbage floating around out there. TWO TEXASES. Think about how much shit you don't like comes from or exists in Texas. Now double that. And imagine it getting an order of magnitude bigger every year.
You may now begin screaming.
You may now begin screaming.
Why gay marriage is wrong and evil
The most concise listing of the arguments against gay marriage I've ever seen. Well, I'm convinced!
Friday, October 19, 2007
Chris Matthews on Kasparov
A great quote by Chris Matthews right after Bill Maher interviews Gary Kasparov:
"Do you ever get the feeling that the Russians are playing chess, and we're playing checkers?"
Wednesday, October 17, 2007
Polizia's Gumball run
Wow. Just...wow. "Batshit insane" doesn't even begin to cover this attempt to drive cross-country in 30 hours.
Boy with the Incredible Brain
I hope I haven't linked to this before, but a very cool BBC(?) documentary on a savant with the ability to "see" numbers and perform incredible feats of math and memory.
Tuesday, October 16, 2007
Sunday, October 14, 2007
Lessig on corruption
A presentation by Lawrence Lessig on "corruption," which the observant among you may remember is the topic Lessig abandoned copyright reform for. Very, very much worth watching (although it will, of course, depress you).
Lessig is a very smart man. What I'm not sure I get is why it took him this long to realize that the influence of money on politics was always going to render copyright reform (and, indeed, most types of reform) basically moot? Isn't that fairly obvious to anyone that pays attention to these issues? Is it simply that you can't spend your life thinking about, studying, and putting your faith into the law if you're as cynical as I am?
I think that last point may be it. I've always thought that the idea of the "rule of law" was a comforting illusion. Lessig has, I think, touched on the _real_ lynch pin of our democratic institutions at the end of his talk, which is the concept of "norms." The rule of law itself is irrelevant; ironically, it's the belief in the rule of law that drives our society.
What's the difference? Well, think about it...in a world where everyone really is self-interested, our institutions fall apart, rule of law be damned. You need only look at what Bush has done to government to see that. The "impartiality" of governmental structures like the EPA, the FDA, hell even the federal attorneys, turned instantly to dust when infected with political figures. Point being, there weren't any objective procedures, rules, or regulations that protected those institutions. Hell, Bush has proved even the Constitution itself is malleable. Can't torture prisoners? Call them enemy combatants. Annoyed by habeas corpus? Move them outside the country. It's all fluid. The law can't save you. All those institutions work (i.e., maintain independence) solely..._solely_...because there are enough people who think that they (the institutions) _should_ work that the institutions do. The _instant_ that's no longer the case, or when political operatives infiltrate those institutions, they collapse.
How to you dedicate your life to something that is, at core, wishful thinking? Or, slightly less dramatically (and more confusingly), how do you dedicate your life to what amounts to a fundamentally _subjective_ political opinion when the crux of that political opinion is that it regards itself as being an _objective_ fact?!
If I'm being unclear, consider this: think of the society most plagued by institutionalized corruption, and try to figure out what differentiates them from us. Think about China, for instance, where bribery is a cost of doing business in government. The point I'm trying to make is that the answer is: very little. We'd like to believe we have a set of impartial institutions, rules, and regulations that support us, allowing us to float serenely above their plagued little fray. But we don't. Those rules could be changed or circumvented at the drop of the hat. The only difference is that, as yet, we don't tolerate that level of corruption. We have a collective, social belief that government officials should not be bribed. Period. End of story. We're acclimated to an environment where it doesn't happen. Grow up in a world where corruption is a part of life, and government will be corrupt. Doesn't matter what's on the books. That's what will happen.
Anyway, I digressed. I just wonder to what degree law is self-perpetuating. Almost like a cult is. What isn't important is the result of arguing about how laws should and should not be structured. It's utterly irrelevant who has the most well-reasoned, logical argument about the penal code. It's simply the underlying belief that law is important that makes it important. My point, I guess, is that it's a wikiality. Nothing grander or more substantial than that. The belief simply propagates itself.
(Maybe that's the strange loop that underpins all of civilization.)
I guess that just annoys me because science quintessentially _isn't_ wikiality. There is a ground truth in there. When you do a physics experiment, either you emitted a photon or you didn't. There's no arguing about it. It didn't emit a photon just because enough people decide that it should. It did. Or it didn't. (or it's in some weird quantum state, but let's not get into that). The only part us idiot members of humanity can play is observing which one it was and telling each other about it. The laws of physics don't collapse if we decide we don't like them, and yet, that's _exactly_ how the law works.
Lessig is a very smart man. What I'm not sure I get is why it took him this long to realize that the influence of money on politics was always going to render copyright reform (and, indeed, most types of reform) basically moot? Isn't that fairly obvious to anyone that pays attention to these issues? Is it simply that you can't spend your life thinking about, studying, and putting your faith into the law if you're as cynical as I am?
I think that last point may be it. I've always thought that the idea of the "rule of law" was a comforting illusion. Lessig has, I think, touched on the _real_ lynch pin of our democratic institutions at the end of his talk, which is the concept of "norms." The rule of law itself is irrelevant; ironically, it's the belief in the rule of law that drives our society.
What's the difference? Well, think about it...in a world where everyone really is self-interested, our institutions fall apart, rule of law be damned. You need only look at what Bush has done to government to see that. The "impartiality" of governmental structures like the EPA, the FDA, hell even the federal attorneys, turned instantly to dust when infected with political figures. Point being, there weren't any objective procedures, rules, or regulations that protected those institutions. Hell, Bush has proved even the Constitution itself is malleable. Can't torture prisoners? Call them enemy combatants. Annoyed by habeas corpus? Move them outside the country. It's all fluid. The law can't save you. All those institutions work (i.e., maintain independence) solely..._solely_...because there are enough people who think that they (the institutions) _should_ work that the institutions do. The _instant_ that's no longer the case, or when political operatives infiltrate those institutions, they collapse.
How to you dedicate your life to something that is, at core, wishful thinking? Or, slightly less dramatically (and more confusingly), how do you dedicate your life to what amounts to a fundamentally _subjective_ political opinion when the crux of that political opinion is that it regards itself as being an _objective_ fact?!
If I'm being unclear, consider this: think of the society most plagued by institutionalized corruption, and try to figure out what differentiates them from us. Think about China, for instance, where bribery is a cost of doing business in government. The point I'm trying to make is that the answer is: very little. We'd like to believe we have a set of impartial institutions, rules, and regulations that support us, allowing us to float serenely above their plagued little fray. But we don't. Those rules could be changed or circumvented at the drop of the hat. The only difference is that, as yet, we don't tolerate that level of corruption. We have a collective, social belief that government officials should not be bribed. Period. End of story. We're acclimated to an environment where it doesn't happen. Grow up in a world where corruption is a part of life, and government will be corrupt. Doesn't matter what's on the books. That's what will happen.
Anyway, I digressed. I just wonder to what degree law is self-perpetuating. Almost like a cult is. What isn't important is the result of arguing about how laws should and should not be structured. It's utterly irrelevant who has the most well-reasoned, logical argument about the penal code. It's simply the underlying belief that law is important that makes it important. My point, I guess, is that it's a wikiality. Nothing grander or more substantial than that. The belief simply propagates itself.
(Maybe that's the strange loop that underpins all of civilization.)
I guess that just annoys me because science quintessentially _isn't_ wikiality. There is a ground truth in there. When you do a physics experiment, either you emitted a photon or you didn't. There's no arguing about it. It didn't emit a photon just because enough people decide that it should. It did. Or it didn't. (or it's in some weird quantum state, but let's not get into that). The only part us idiot members of humanity can play is observing which one it was and telling each other about it. The laws of physics don't collapse if we decide we don't like them, and yet, that's _exactly_ how the law works.
Saturday, October 13, 2007
The life and death of Jesse James
An absolutely crazy but fascinating story of the kinds of deception you can perpetrate using modern telecommunications technology.
Concept cars for 2057
This is so utterly nerdy, but these concept cars are awesome. And, I think, far more creative than anything that's been in any of the sci fi movies lately.
Lawyer representing embryos in California
Oh for fuck's sake...what is wrong with people in this country?
Friday, October 12, 2007
Props to Lynne Cheney
Yes, she's evil and married to the devil, but props to ol' Lynne for having a sense of humor. She brought Jon a little Darth Vader doll, and she said one of the things that Cheney does at home is bite the head off a live chicken.
Go Lynne!
On the other hand, he does claim that she isn't her husband and shouldn't be challenged...BUT, let's remember she is a fellow at the American Enterprise Institute. It ain't like she's not a political figure here, folks.
Go Lynne!
On the other hand, he does claim that she isn't her husband and shouldn't be challenged...BUT, let's remember she is a fellow at the American Enterprise Institute. It ain't like she's not a political figure here, folks.
Gore's Nobel
I'm sure you've heard about Gore's Nobel Peace Prize by now (note that he shares it with the UN climate panel). I feel a little weird about it, to be honest.
It's not that Gore isn't a good guy who has done great stuff. I just think the precedent is a little odd. I was reading...somewhere, and I'm too lazy to try to dig up the reference...about some of the political dynamics of the economics Nobel work. The Nobel in economics tends to be given to someone for work they did 15 to 20 years ago, the reason being that it's only with that much historical perspective can you tell if the work was accurate and if it had an effect.
I feel like the same standard should apply here. It may well be that Al Gore's efforts have catalyzed global action on climate change, but I don't think we have the perspective yet to be able to assert that. Maybe he will have turned out to be the one to lead the sea change in policy opinion and priority that ultimately leads to the aversion of a climate crisis. But what if we've already fucked ourselves? What if anything we do now is too late and has essentially no effect? What if the momentum of the past few years fizzles and amounts to nothing? Has he really done the most to promote global peace in those contexts?
And, frankly, what has he done other than utilize his celebrity to highlight the issue and educate? Not that that isn't useful, but is it really the stuff of a Nobel award? Will this be forever known as the Apple Keynote presentation that won a Nobel Peace Prize?
It's not that Gore isn't a good guy who has done great stuff. I just think the precedent is a little odd. I was reading...somewhere, and I'm too lazy to try to dig up the reference...about some of the political dynamics of the economics Nobel work. The Nobel in economics tends to be given to someone for work they did 15 to 20 years ago, the reason being that it's only with that much historical perspective can you tell if the work was accurate and if it had an effect.
I feel like the same standard should apply here. It may well be that Al Gore's efforts have catalyzed global action on climate change, but I don't think we have the perspective yet to be able to assert that. Maybe he will have turned out to be the one to lead the sea change in policy opinion and priority that ultimately leads to the aversion of a climate crisis. But what if we've already fucked ourselves? What if anything we do now is too late and has essentially no effect? What if the momentum of the past few years fizzles and amounts to nothing? Has he really done the most to promote global peace in those contexts?
And, frankly, what has he done other than utilize his celebrity to highlight the issue and educate? Not that that isn't useful, but is it really the stuff of a Nobel award? Will this be forever known as the Apple Keynote presentation that won a Nobel Peace Prize?
Thursday, October 11, 2007
My hero
This guy is my hero. If my dream were to personify a character that Dave Chapelle would dream up, or, like, a walking MadTV sketch, I would _totally_ want to be this guy.
(also, nice boxers, asshole.)
(also, nice boxers, asshole.)
Tips for improving wireless reception from Microsoft
Something useful from Microsoft? Surely you jest!
(though it might actually be useful, hence the post)
(though it might actually be useful, hence the post)
Goddamn rapist ducks redux
The man makes very compelling points on those goddamn lowlife rapist ducks:
"Someone needs to do something! Think about all the innocent children feeding ducks in the park right now. They're feeding rapists! Have you heard of a character called Donald Duck? RAPIST! Daisy Duck? GETTING IT EVERY NIGHT!"
Your depressing post of the day
Well, so much for any hope that call girls didn't have a history of sexual abuse...
*sigh*.
Let us not forget that people are, at core, animals. Plain and simple.
*sigh*.
Let us not forget that people are, at core, animals. Plain and simple.
Wednesday, October 10, 2007
WetRiffs (nsfw)
I'm really kind of disturbed that not only did this happen, but very shortly after that, this happened.
Also, from the pics:
Also, from the pics:
- Brenda's nipples could kill someone!
- If you go to Demele's webcomic site and read the FAQ, she's _17_. I feel...dirty. Having seen this pic yesterday of what I can only assume is a _very_ young Jodie Foster doesn't help things much.
SITE intelligence leak: a non-obvious question
Okay, yes, the Bush administration is inept and hypocritical with regard to terrorism surveillance, yada yada yada. At this point, if you haven't figured this out, you're retarded and/or not paying attention.
Here's what I want to know, though: why the fuck is a private company (SITE) engaging in its own foreign surveillance ops? Shouldn't this, you know, _not happen_? Be illegal? Something? The CIA is scary enough...do we really need private companies doing the same shit with no visible accountability?
Here's what I want to know, though: why the fuck is a private company (SITE) engaging in its own foreign surveillance ops? Shouldn't this, you know, _not happen_? Be illegal? Something? The CIA is scary enough...do we really need private companies doing the same shit with no visible accountability?
Fucking ostriches
Goddamn uppity flightless birds...always trying to humiliate you when you're on a date...
Monday, October 08, 2007
I'm really glad I'm not an insect
*whimper*
On the other hand, it could be worse...you could be a female African Bat Bug:
On the other hand, it could be worse...you could be a female African Bat Bug:
"Instead of copulating via the female’s sex organs, he will stab her abdomen to release sperm directly into her bloodstream."
Sunday, October 07, 2007
Severed corpus collosum
A crazy video of what happens to someone who has had their corpus collosum (a part of the brain that connects the two hemispheres) severed. The right brain can see the word "saw" in the left visual field, cause the left hand to draw a picture of a saw, and yet if you ask the guy why he drew a saw, he'll have no idea.
Really makes you wonder about our perception of consciousness...
Really makes you wonder about our perception of consciousness...
Saturday, October 06, 2007
Arse Elektronika (nsfw)
*twitch*...
"The latest adult industry "'pr0nnovations" will be on display in San Francisco this weekend at Arse Elektronika, a three-day expo featuring sex machines, brainy talks and weird performances (including the Electric Orifice Orchestra, in which "extravagantly dressed performers use live biofeedback from muscular interior walls of their bodies to create a multimedia interactive show")."
Giraffe fight!
Good lord...have you ever seen two giraffes fight? Did you know they fight by whipping their heads at each other? Don't they get whiplash?
Thursday, October 04, 2007
If There Were a God... (10/4/07)
If there were a God, he would not allow pictures of dragons having sex with cars to exist anywhere. Ever. (nsfw)
Wednesday, October 03, 2007
Depressing Iraq link of the day
I think it's fairly clear that the major problem these women had was the feeling that the Democrats back home were not supporting them.
Monday, October 01, 2007
Million dollar audiophile challenge
Ha! I love it. James Randi, who gets his jollies by proving paranormal claims to be bullshit, is now offering $1 million for scientific proof that $7250 audio cables actually sound better than the (already overpriced) Monster cables that you can get for $50 at Radio Shack.
Sunday, September 30, 2007
Evangelical Third Party
Oh please please _pleeeeeease_ let them go through with it! My fervent hopes and dreams would be answered...
(of course, it's an idle threat...I don't think even they are that stupid)
(of course, it's an idle threat...I don't think even they are that stupid)
Saturday, September 29, 2007
Dice stacking
If I didn't like boobs so much, this video might make me question my sexuality.
(also, what's the second song?)
(Ed. It's Fatboy Slim "Right Here Right Now")
(also, what's the second song?)
(Ed. It's Fatboy Slim "Right Here Right Now")
Friday, September 28, 2007
Of course you realize, this means war...
Okay. That's it. The bicyclists clearly need to be stopped. Let history remember that they started this. They declared war. We merely defended ourselves.
It's bad enough when one self-righteous bicyclist in ridiculous pants holds up traffic on a road. It's an entirely different abomination when an organized group takes to the streets specifically to impede traffic. Before, I was content merely to be annoyed by them. Now, they must be destroyed. Delenda est bicyclibus.
Here is my idea for a counter-protest. Some particular day, we get a lot of people together and find a heavily used bike route. Preferably one bikers use to get to work. And we walk. We walk in their bike lanes. Slowly. Arduously. Frequently stopping to tie our shoes. Or even just yawn. And we accost any bicyclists we see. We angrily condemn them for using up our precious natural resources on the construction of their environmentally oblivious and selfish bicycles, those wantonly wasteful devices of convenience that are contributing to the destruction of our planet. We must vilify these people at all costs so that their selfish behavior is highlighted to all the world, and government action can be taken.
We must construct self-congratulatory websites that claim our actions are to promote the fun of walking and the sense of community among walkers despite the fact that our actions are clearly meant to piss off as many people that we don't like as possible. We must shroud our assholicism in the cloak of activism. And then we must go home and eat beef that has been injected with as many growth hormones as possible (shouldn't a cow feed as many people as possible?) while we stew in our self-satisfied juices knowing, deep down, that just as we have saved the life of a defenseless soy plant, our actions have made the world a better place.
(Fuckers.)
It's bad enough when one self-righteous bicyclist in ridiculous pants holds up traffic on a road. It's an entirely different abomination when an organized group takes to the streets specifically to impede traffic. Before, I was content merely to be annoyed by them. Now, they must be destroyed. Delenda est bicyclibus.
Here is my idea for a counter-protest. Some particular day, we get a lot of people together and find a heavily used bike route. Preferably one bikers use to get to work. And we walk. We walk in their bike lanes. Slowly. Arduously. Frequently stopping to tie our shoes. Or even just yawn. And we accost any bicyclists we see. We angrily condemn them for using up our precious natural resources on the construction of their environmentally oblivious and selfish bicycles, those wantonly wasteful devices of convenience that are contributing to the destruction of our planet. We must vilify these people at all costs so that their selfish behavior is highlighted to all the world, and government action can be taken.
We must construct self-congratulatory websites that claim our actions are to promote the fun of walking and the sense of community among walkers despite the fact that our actions are clearly meant to piss off as many people that we don't like as possible. We must shroud our assholicism in the cloak of activism. And then we must go home and eat beef that has been injected with as many growth hormones as possible (shouldn't a cow feed as many people as possible?) while we stew in our self-satisfied juices knowing, deep down, that just as we have saved the life of a defenseless soy plant, our actions have made the world a better place.
(Fuckers.)
Thursday, September 27, 2007
Deep thought from my AI textbook
"Consider the sentence:Like, whoah, man...
J. R. Lucas cannot consistently assert that this sentence is true.
If Lucas asserted this sentence then he would be contradicting himself, so therefore Lucas cannot consistently assert it, and hence it must be true. (The sentence cannot be false, because if it were then Lucas could not consistently assert it, so it would be true.) We have thus demonstrated that there is a sentence that Lucas cannot consistently assert while other people (and machines) can. But that does not make us think less of Lucas."
A geographic challenge to Islam
For anyone who doesn't think arbitrary religious dogma is ridiculous...
Lessons learned
What I learned from this very techie thread on whether Linux's chroot should be used as a security sandboxing tool: Alan Cox is an asshole. Why is it that uber-nerds regard expertise as a license to be a complete and utter fucking tool?
Wednesday, September 26, 2007
No more Daily Douchebags for Jack Thompson, but...
...still, and seriously, _what the fuck is wrong with him_???
Sunday, September 23, 2007
A suggested koan
Confucius say: "When a mime dies, do you hold a moment of cacaphony at his funeral?"
Saturday, September 22, 2007
Friday, September 21, 2007
Wires at an airport
How fucking retarded do you have to be to wear a hooded sweatshirt with a circuitboard and wires attached to it to an airport, ask about an incoming plane, and NOT ANSWER QUESTIONS ABOUT THE RAT'S NEST OF ELECTRONICS ON YOUR CHEST when asked?!
Jesus fucking christ...until now I didn't think it was possible to be so socially oblivious that it was life-threatening, but leave it to a goddamn MIT student to prove me wrong.
Just because you're smart does not mean you have license to tune out the world around you. You still have to be cognizant of the social environment you live in, for fuck's sake.
Jesus fucking christ...until now I didn't think it was possible to be so socially oblivious that it was life-threatening, but leave it to a goddamn MIT student to prove me wrong.
Just because you're smart does not mean you have license to tune out the world around you. You still have to be cognizant of the social environment you live in, for fuck's sake.
My shame
I have this theory that the Universe sets out specifically to turn me into a hypocrite whenever it can possibly manage it.
Consequently, I caved and bought an iPhone yesterday. Look, alright, they dropped the price $200, gave me a $100 credit on top of that, and my absolutely shitful Cingular 8125 crapped out yesterday (how can you make a pda where IMAP doesn't fucking work? What the fuck is wrong with the Windows Mobile developers?). Oh, and did I mention the fact that it cut my data cost in half? The damn thing practically pays for itself!
I didn't have a choice.
Consequently, I caved and bought an iPhone yesterday. Look, alright, they dropped the price $200, gave me a $100 credit on top of that, and my absolutely shitful Cingular 8125 crapped out yesterday (how can you make a pda where IMAP doesn't fucking work? What the fuck is wrong with the Windows Mobile developers?). Oh, and did I mention the fact that it cut my data cost in half? The damn thing practically pays for itself!
I didn't have a choice.
Thursday, September 20, 2007
Wednesday, September 19, 2007
A problem of credibility
Who exactly are you going to believe: the former 20-year head of the Fed (who probably knows a thing or two about economics), or Dick Cheney?
Tuesday, September 18, 2007
Seattle has a sense of humor
What? I see no problem with the South Lake Union Trolley.
Also:
Also:
"The $50.5 million project should be completed with streetcars running in December. Underlying the lighthearted opposition, however, is resentment over changes in the old working-class neighborhood.
"There was a meeting with representatives from the city several years ago," Johnson recalled.
"They asked us, 'What we could do for you?' Most people raised their hands and said, 'Affordable housing,'" he said. "Then the people from the city huddled together -- 'whisper, whisper, whisper,' -- and they said, 'How about a trolley?'"
Monday, September 17, 2007
Randy Pausch
Sadly, I recently learned that Randy Pausch, on whose philosophy I have previously ranted, has terminal cancer and has roughly 3-6 months to live. Yet more proof that the good die young and assholes live forever (see Strom Thurmond, Jesse Helms, etc.).
(Incidentally, his jarringly-described "last lecture" on his philosophy of life will be webcast tomorrow [Tuesday, September 18th] at 4:30 Eastern at mms://wms.andrew.cmu.edu/pushit01. I encourage you to watch. Incidally, you need Windows Media Player to view it.)
Even though I still disagree with a lot of Randy's credo, he's still a really great guy, and what he and his family have and will go through is fucking awful. Listening in the car to George Carlin on the way from Death Valley back to Mountain View yesterday, I was reminded how similar my philosophy on life is similar to Carlin's. Yes, Carlin is a profoundly cynical, sarcastic, nihilistic old coot, but I am reminded once again of something I saw he said in, actually, more than one interview (the quote below is from Salon, which I don't have a membership with):
...which makes me wonder, actually: Randy's the kind of guy who, though he's probably too intelligent to assert that shit only happens to people who don't make sure it doesn't, would probably nonetheless assert that shit happening is merely an obstacle to get around on the way to achieving whatever it is you want to achieve. But what happens when the shit that happens to you is too big to get around? What if it's some "Game Over" shit like pancreatic cancer?
I dunno...I imagine what he would say is that, in the face of something that could prematurely end your life, it's all the more important to be efficient about achieving whatever it is you want to achieve. But still, I reassert the point I made in my earlier post: maybe it's the case that a guy like Randy actively enjoys the process of organizing and efficiently regimenting his life in pursuit of his goals, but what of the rest of us? What if it's the case that you hate that regimentation? Does the fragility of life not suggest that you spend at least _some_ of your time in this mortal coil dicking around and spontaneously enjoying yourself lest the opportunity pass you by? Isn't there a profound, important difference between putting a calendar item in Outlook that says, "Enjoy life" and waking up on a Wednesday and saying to yourself, "You know what? Today, I'm going to have a milkshake for breakfast, play Zelda, and then do whatever comes to mind after that. Fuck the rest of the world."?
(Incidentally, his jarringly-described "last lecture" on his philosophy of life will be webcast tomorrow [Tuesday, September 18th] at 4:30 Eastern at mms://wms.andrew.cmu.edu/pushit01. I encourage you to watch. Incidally, you need Windows Media Player to view it.)
Even though I still disagree with a lot of Randy's credo, he's still a really great guy, and what he and his family have and will go through is fucking awful. Listening in the car to George Carlin on the way from Death Valley back to Mountain View yesterday, I was reminded how similar my philosophy on life is similar to Carlin's. Yes, Carlin is a profoundly cynical, sarcastic, nihilistic old coot, but I am reminded once again of something I saw he said in, actually, more than one interview (the quote below is from Salon, which I don't have a membership with):
I'm a disappointed idealist. I think of myself as a skeptic, a realist. I think the cynics are the people who left the gas tank on the Ford Pinto, companies that kill people and just cross them out because they can't afford to retool. That's a cynical position. But the saying goes, if you scratch a cynic, you find a disappointed idealist, and that's what's going on with me. Down deep and underneath, the flame still flickers.I've always thought that adage, the one about scratching a cynic and finding an idealist, was very true. No one should have to go through what Randy has, especially not someone like Randy. Why is it that Randy gets pancreatic cancer while an asshole like Donald Rumsfeld hasn't had his nuts bitten off by rabid wolverines? I know, I know...the answer is that there isn't any reason. Shit happens.
...which makes me wonder, actually: Randy's the kind of guy who, though he's probably too intelligent to assert that shit only happens to people who don't make sure it doesn't, would probably nonetheless assert that shit happening is merely an obstacle to get around on the way to achieving whatever it is you want to achieve. But what happens when the shit that happens to you is too big to get around? What if it's some "Game Over" shit like pancreatic cancer?
I dunno...I imagine what he would say is that, in the face of something that could prematurely end your life, it's all the more important to be efficient about achieving whatever it is you want to achieve. But still, I reassert the point I made in my earlier post: maybe it's the case that a guy like Randy actively enjoys the process of organizing and efficiently regimenting his life in pursuit of his goals, but what of the rest of us? What if it's the case that you hate that regimentation? Does the fragility of life not suggest that you spend at least _some_ of your time in this mortal coil dicking around and spontaneously enjoying yourself lest the opportunity pass you by? Isn't there a profound, important difference between putting a calendar item in Outlook that says, "Enjoy life" and waking up on a Wednesday and saying to yourself, "You know what? Today, I'm going to have a milkshake for breakfast, play Zelda, and then do whatever comes to mind after that. Fuck the rest of the world."?
Friday, September 14, 2007
Monday, September 10, 2007
A friendly piece of advice
If a gentleman tries to return a shotgun, accept it. For the love of god, accept it.
Friday, September 07, 2007
Your daily douchebag (09/07/07)
I have to resist giving a Daily Douchebag to Jack Thompson for pretty much every breath he takes, but I think sending subpoenas to both George W. and Jeb Bush as part of his defense against being disbarred. I mean...wow. I think we need to make a new "megalomaniacal" subdivision of "paranoid schizophrenic" just for ol' Wacky Jacky.
So are the cable news channels going to still invite this nutjob on their programs? Oh, probably...he's still entertaining. In the way that that homeless guy yelling at invisible gremlins is entertaining.
So are the cable news channels going to still invite this nutjob on their programs? Oh, probably...he's still entertaining. In the way that that homeless guy yelling at invisible gremlins is entertaining.
Tuesday, September 04, 2007
Monday, September 03, 2007
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)