Post-Modern Update
If you're wondering what I am doing, I've been busy on the Dead Pool weblog issuing commentary on Arafats health crisis. I'm also working on something special for the fans of Laurence Simon.
Wednesday, October 27, 2004
Random Rant
I have discovered something worse than luddites.
People, usually older than 40, who don't understand how to use technology. Also, they don't want to learn how to use technology. They say this like it is their deserved right to not learn how to use it. And the worse part is they use it anyways. And then they complain! They complain that they don't understand how to use their technology and that the people who made the technology should have made it so that you don't have to learn how to use it, and it should work like whatever they were using before, and that they want someone who knows how to use it to fix it, because they don't want to be bothered to learn how to use the technology they bought.
Ultimately, it funnels down to the arrogance and selfishness of the 'boomer generation. They have better things to do than learn how to use a PDA or a PC, and see maintaining and customizing technology as too meaningless to be bothered with, and when it does have to be fixed it is someone else's responsibility, becase they are just too busy to learn how to fix it themselves. After all, it isn't like a lawn mower or sewing machine. I mean, they had lawnmowers and sewing machines when they grew up. And they had grown-ups to teach them how to use those. PCs are a product and province of the disrespectful slacker under-generations, and you must be a fat balding dirty techie to understand how to use that stuff. But all those fat balding dirty deadbeats who spend all day watching Nascar are okay. (Alright, I'm sorry about that one. The Boomers just think their white trash.)
There is really only one solution to this problem. End tech support for the ignorant. To receive tech support, a person must have read the manual that came with the technology from front to back. And if they have a problem with that, there is a simple alternative. Don't use the technology!
If you really want to know, this rant was the result of people not understanding that replacing a CD in a CD player on single-track repeat does not turn off single-track repeat, and do not even know how to turn off single-track repeat. My biggest question is, "What are these people doing with a CD player?"
Also, I do not work in tech support.
I have discovered something worse than luddites.
People, usually older than 40, who don't understand how to use technology. Also, they don't want to learn how to use technology. They say this like it is their deserved right to not learn how to use it. And the worse part is they use it anyways. And then they complain! They complain that they don't understand how to use their technology and that the people who made the technology should have made it so that you don't have to learn how to use it, and it should work like whatever they were using before, and that they want someone who knows how to use it to fix it, because they don't want to be bothered to learn how to use the technology they bought.
Ultimately, it funnels down to the arrogance and selfishness of the 'boomer generation. They have better things to do than learn how to use a PDA or a PC, and see maintaining and customizing technology as too meaningless to be bothered with, and when it does have to be fixed it is someone else's responsibility, becase they are just too busy to learn how to fix it themselves. After all, it isn't like a lawn mower or sewing machine. I mean, they had lawnmowers and sewing machines when they grew up. And they had grown-ups to teach them how to use those. PCs are a product and province of the disrespectful slacker under-generations, and you must be a fat balding dirty techie to understand how to use that stuff. But all those fat balding dirty deadbeats who spend all day watching Nascar are okay. (Alright, I'm sorry about that one. The Boomers just think their white trash.)
There is really only one solution to this problem. End tech support for the ignorant. To receive tech support, a person must have read the manual that came with the technology from front to back. And if they have a problem with that, there is a simple alternative. Don't use the technology!
If you really want to know, this rant was the result of people not understanding that replacing a CD in a CD player on single-track repeat does not turn off single-track repeat, and do not even know how to turn off single-track repeat. My biggest question is, "What are these people doing with a CD player?"
Also, I do not work in tech support.
Funny Weirdness
In an e-mail from another blogger, I found a mentioning of Godwin's Law. Not knowing what it was, I looked it up. I found the best answer here. I also found another funny site about Usenet flamers.
"I don't think USENET is an anarchy. It isn't that well organised." --Simon Slavin
In an e-mail from another blogger, I found a mentioning of Godwin's Law. Not knowing what it was, I looked it up. I found the best answer here. I also found another funny site about Usenet flamers.
"I don't think USENET is an anarchy. It isn't that well organised." --Simon Slavin
Tuesday, October 26, 2004
Devastating
I have already voted absentee, and I voted for Bush, something that would have surprised the hell out of me four years ago.
I have already voted absentee, and I voted for Bush, something that would have surprised the hell out of me four years ago.
Wednesday, October 13, 2004
Scotsman.com: Blix Believed Iraq Dossier Was 'Understated'
If this is true, it becomes very clear why Bush is confident he made good judgement in moving quickly after the breakdown of negotiations in the UN over the failure of Saddam to comply with Res. 1441. It also obviously again shows that "Bush lied" is nonsense.If Blix thought British intelligence on Iraq was reasonable, and his inspections were being hindered by Saddam, would it have been reasonable to think that Saddam may not have any weapons, and is obstructing inspections just because he is paranoid?
You figure it out. A lot of people critiicizing Bush for his "rush to war," also criticized Bush for not acting on two sentences saying that Al-Qaeda was possibly planning a bombing of a building in New York City by immediatly doing something to stop September 11th. Here Bush had what appeared to be a more definite report of a danger from an enemy who could not hide, and after much of the UNSC agreed with this and agreed that Saddam was obstructing the inspections, they were at the very least hesitant to do anything about it.
This brings up an issue I have with Bush, as he characterizes himself as someone who will not let other nations veto efforts to ensure America's security. think he should say that he will not let other nations be a veto on our efforts to ensure global security, because when it came down to it, Saddam Hussein was not just a threat to the US, and of course Israel, but also a threat to Iran, to Kuwait, to Turkey, and to Saudi Arabia.
If the intelligence had been correct, what happened in the UN would have been comparable to Britain being condemned internationally for wanting to stop Germany from rebuilding its military to protect Czechoslovakia, among other European nations from being threatened by a beligerrent Germany, if Hitler had already occupied Sudetenland and been driven out by the British and their alliance. Any world leader who did not want to see Saddam removed after knowing that he didn't appear to have given up on acquiring WMD, and after he had invaded Kuwait without provocation, as well as waged a long bloody war against a neighboring state in which he probably used chemical weapons, either needs their head examined, or needs their Swiss Bank Account checked. If that leader was Saddam, he just needed to be shot.
Whatever Bush's failings in going to war against Saddam, the decision and time were correct, and John Kerry should not be the Commander-in-Chief if he thinks differently.
(hat tip: Captain's Quarters)
If this is true, it becomes very clear why Bush is confident he made good judgement in moving quickly after the breakdown of negotiations in the UN over the failure of Saddam to comply with Res. 1441. It also obviously again shows that "Bush lied" is nonsense.If Blix thought British intelligence on Iraq was reasonable, and his inspections were being hindered by Saddam, would it have been reasonable to think that Saddam may not have any weapons, and is obstructing inspections just because he is paranoid?
You figure it out. A lot of people critiicizing Bush for his "rush to war," also criticized Bush for not acting on two sentences saying that Al-Qaeda was possibly planning a bombing of a building in New York City by immediatly doing something to stop September 11th. Here Bush had what appeared to be a more definite report of a danger from an enemy who could not hide, and after much of the UNSC agreed with this and agreed that Saddam was obstructing the inspections, they were at the very least hesitant to do anything about it.
This brings up an issue I have with Bush, as he characterizes himself as someone who will not let other nations veto efforts to ensure America's security. think he should say that he will not let other nations be a veto on our efforts to ensure global security, because when it came down to it, Saddam Hussein was not just a threat to the US, and of course Israel, but also a threat to Iran, to Kuwait, to Turkey, and to Saudi Arabia.
If the intelligence had been correct, what happened in the UN would have been comparable to Britain being condemned internationally for wanting to stop Germany from rebuilding its military to protect Czechoslovakia, among other European nations from being threatened by a beligerrent Germany, if Hitler had already occupied Sudetenland and been driven out by the British and their alliance. Any world leader who did not want to see Saddam removed after knowing that he didn't appear to have given up on acquiring WMD, and after he had invaded Kuwait without provocation, as well as waged a long bloody war against a neighboring state in which he probably used chemical weapons, either needs their head examined, or needs their Swiss Bank Account checked. If that leader was Saddam, he just needed to be shot.
Whatever Bush's failings in going to war against Saddam, the decision and time were correct, and John Kerry should not be the Commander-in-Chief if he thinks differently.
(hat tip: Captain's Quarters)
Monday, October 11, 2004
Kerry Cannot Lead the War on Terror
Michele finds one definitively fatal statement from Kerry in the much talked about NY Times Magazine article:
''We have to get back to the place we were, where terrorists are not the focus of our lives, but they're a nuisance."
I thought that this quote was bad when I first read it, as it is hard to imagine terrorism ever being just "a nuisance." Now I've realized it is even worse. Kerry is claiming that all the terrorism that preceded 9/11 was just "a nuisance."
That is just plain stupid. I don't think Kerry is even competent to deal with foreign policy in the Senate, much less as President. My intention to vote for Bush, something I would have thought unlikely in January of this year, and absolutely ridiculous in January of 2001, has just been affirmed.
Michele finds one definitively fatal statement from Kerry in the much talked about NY Times Magazine article:
''We have to get back to the place we were, where terrorists are not the focus of our lives, but they're a nuisance."
I thought that this quote was bad when I first read it, as it is hard to imagine terrorism ever being just "a nuisance." Now I've realized it is even worse. Kerry is claiming that all the terrorism that preceded 9/11 was just "a nuisance."
That is just plain stupid. I don't think Kerry is even competent to deal with foreign policy in the Senate, much less as President. My intention to vote for Bush, something I would have thought unlikely in January of this year, and absolutely ridiculous in January of 2001, has just been affirmed.
The Belmont Club Unpacks Kerry's Foreign Policy Plan
I am linking to this post mainly because it quotes The Great Gatsby, one of the greatest books ever written. Read the post if you want to learn how the Kerry plan to fight terrorism is not a novel idea, and has already been tried. And definitely read The Great Gatsby. It is a fantastic book about how humans relate to each other and what a person's character and virtue is.
I am linking to this post mainly because it quotes The Great Gatsby, one of the greatest books ever written. Read the post if you want to learn how the Kerry plan to fight terrorism is not a novel idea, and has already been tried. And definitely read The Great Gatsby. It is a fantastic book about how humans relate to each other and what a person's character and virtue is.
Sunday, October 10, 2004
Life Imitates Satire/Surrealism
After reading this post at INDC Journal on how different John Kerry's stance on the war in Iraq was two years ago, I decided to google backwards links to the transcript Bill linked to. One page I found was a post on Indymedia Portland from January 26th, 2004. Against my better judgement, I looked at it. (Warning: link not safe for rationalism)
All I will say is that it begins with a commentor using the pseudonym "The Sane Left", advocating that his/her fellow Indymediers support Kerry rather than Dean, because Dean criticized Kerry for not voting for what "The Sane Left" describes as "the Bush Senior 1991 genocidal Oil War." Yes, that refers to Gulf War I. If you can't see the irony and surrealism in what I have said so far, please leave this page quickly, because you are either very naive and uninformed, or you are a total far-left moonbat.
The following responses contain significant insanity and radical venom directed at...other left-wing radicals. I don't want to describe it any more, because it makes my head hurt.
Also, Kerry is a duplicitous political hack. If he does have legitimate reasons for his decisions for every position on foreign policy he has reversed, he has made a lot of big errors of judgement in his career, and I shuddder to think of how badly he'll screw up if he is elected president.
After reading this post at INDC Journal on how different John Kerry's stance on the war in Iraq was two years ago, I decided to google backwards links to the transcript Bill linked to. One page I found was a post on Indymedia Portland from January 26th, 2004. Against my better judgement, I looked at it. (Warning: link not safe for rationalism)
All I will say is that it begins with a commentor using the pseudonym "The Sane Left", advocating that his/her fellow Indymediers support Kerry rather than Dean, because Dean criticized Kerry for not voting for what "The Sane Left" describes as "the Bush Senior 1991 genocidal Oil War." Yes, that refers to Gulf War I. If you can't see the irony and surrealism in what I have said so far, please leave this page quickly, because you are either very naive and uninformed, or you are a total far-left moonbat.
The following responses contain significant insanity and radical venom directed at...other left-wing radicals. I don't want to describe it any more, because it makes my head hurt.
Also, Kerry is a duplicitous political hack. If he does have legitimate reasons for his decisions for every position on foreign policy he has reversed, he has made a lot of big errors of judgement in his career, and I shuddder to think of how badly he'll screw up if he is elected president.
Tuesday, October 05, 2004
Monday, October 04, 2004
AFP: Analysts see solid US economy in 2005 under Bush or Kerry
This is what Daniel Drezner predicted in his Foreign Affairs piece on outsourcing, and why the economy is not one of my concerns this election.
In case anyone was wondering, I think both candidates' economic plans are equally wrong.
This is what Daniel Drezner predicted in his Foreign Affairs piece on outsourcing, and why the economy is not one of my concerns this election.
In case anyone was wondering, I think both candidates' economic plans are equally wrong.