Here's a more low-level poet for you to attack, Jack. Or maybe you'll love him. At least he rhymes.
What's the deal with Tim McGraw? I just don't understand his last few songs. I can't figure them out. Am I missing something?
Country music tells stories. Tim McGraw sings these odd little lyrics that are nothing more than pretty words strung together. What's up?
Like -- "Dancing When the Stars go Blue," whatever that "1-2-3 like a bird I sing" song is called.... and there are more.
Get lost, Tim and Faith. You guys were okay back in the day. Nobody likes you anymore. Rich jerks.
Friday, April 27, 2007
Wednesday, April 25, 2007
Wikidemics
I know everyone comments on Wikipedia. Most are philosophically opposed to the database. I guess I am as well, though I certainly can't deny that I frequently use it. It works if you're looking for a quick summary of something, or even as a familiarization with a term.
But wikipedia is a good discussion springboard for a broader question of modern academics.
In the Middle Ages, with the monastical origins of modern universities and the pursuit of academics, this pursuit was a blend of mystery and logic. Fundamentally deductive, this pursuit involved scholars with limited information on their hands using first principles and observed truth to reach new knowledge.
In short, I believe that modern academics were founded on a balance that naturally favored reasoning and first principles to information.
Somewhere recently I think we must have hit a point of inflection (in the calculus sense). Postmodern academics, for lack of a better term, was born when academia began to favor a preponderance of information. And now, with the internet, among other resources, we have a gross overabundance of information.
The problem is that now, for the weight of the information, knowledge and truth seem to increasingly suffer, or perhaps become even irrelevant. (E.G., Wiki-ism)
Strange that the beautiful work of centuries of academia has built an information Tower of Babel. And now nothing is clear, and nothing makes sense, and we have lost the foundation we first built on.
But wikipedia is a good discussion springboard for a broader question of modern academics.
In the Middle Ages, with the monastical origins of modern universities and the pursuit of academics, this pursuit was a blend of mystery and logic. Fundamentally deductive, this pursuit involved scholars with limited information on their hands using first principles and observed truth to reach new knowledge.
In short, I believe that modern academics were founded on a balance that naturally favored reasoning and first principles to information.
Somewhere recently I think we must have hit a point of inflection (in the calculus sense). Postmodern academics, for lack of a better term, was born when academia began to favor a preponderance of information. And now, with the internet, among other resources, we have a gross overabundance of information.
The problem is that now, for the weight of the information, knowledge and truth seem to increasingly suffer, or perhaps become even irrelevant. (E.G., Wiki-ism)
Strange that the beautiful work of centuries of academia has built an information Tower of Babel. And now nothing is clear, and nothing makes sense, and we have lost the foundation we first built on.
Tuesday, April 24, 2007
The Hypocrites
John Kerry asked a question several days ago in a statement that quoted his statement in 1973 in reference to the Vietnam War. This question is a catch phrase among certain people.
"How do you ask a man to be the last to die for a mistake?"
Yet this is precisely what he would do -- an example again of one of his kind hurting those he claims to help. We establish a timeline for withdrawl, and we have surrendered. But we will keep fighting until that surrender becomes effective.
That is asking several hundred thousand American soldiers to fight for one more year for a mistake -- fight an enemy who has been informed they will win in exactly 13 months. How can you do that to a soldier?
If this war is lost, and if it is a mistake, and you must make an end, then, for pity's sake, end it now. But, as I suspect most of these men do, you know that an end cannot be made of it tomorrow because of the disasterous results, then the war is not lost, and you owe a debt to those who gave their lives to fight on. The gutless will never make a hard call. Instead, they will open the veins of those who depend on them, and let them bleed out slowly. Because it requires a man of courage to either fight like a lion, or face the consequences of a lost fight. The cowards will stand by.
There is only one option.
"How do you ask a man to be the last to die for a mistake?"
Yet this is precisely what he would do -- an example again of one of his kind hurting those he claims to help. We establish a timeline for withdrawl, and we have surrendered. But we will keep fighting until that surrender becomes effective.
That is asking several hundred thousand American soldiers to fight for one more year for a mistake -- fight an enemy who has been informed they will win in exactly 13 months. How can you do that to a soldier?
If this war is lost, and if it is a mistake, and you must make an end, then, for pity's sake, end it now. But, as I suspect most of these men do, you know that an end cannot be made of it tomorrow because of the disasterous results, then the war is not lost, and you owe a debt to those who gave their lives to fight on. The gutless will never make a hard call. Instead, they will open the veins of those who depend on them, and let them bleed out slowly. Because it requires a man of courage to either fight like a lion, or face the consequences of a lost fight. The cowards will stand by.
There is only one option.
Sunday, April 15, 2007
Election Bug
Everybody's got it.
I encourage you all to look into Fred Thompson. He's and Newt are the big Republicans who have not declared, but I believe both of them will. Nationwide, the standings at the moment look something like:
1. Rudy
2. McCain
3. Romney
4. Thompson
5. Newt
But, of course, this is the early part of the game, and so most poll participants are blue-staters, and usually left-leaning GOPers. So the projected polls for the actual realistic standings are more like this:
1. McCain
2. Romney / Thompson
3. Thompson/ Romney
4. Rudy
5. Newt
And so far, in red state straw polls, it's usually a split, with either Thompson or Romney taking the strong lead.
So, I think that everyone should take a good look at Fred Thompson, and read up on his issues. I have enormous respect for him. I still love John McCain, and he probably has a better General Election shot, but in the meantime, I am throwing in behind Fred. He's a good man.
I strongly encourage everyone to steer very clear of Rudy, Romney, and Newt. Rudy should be evident. He's a strong leader, and I think he'd be a reasonably strong internationally-inclined President, but his stand on every single social issue is untennable. Besides the ethical questions of voting for such a man, I think that electing a Republican who is left of center on all social issues and some economic is the worst strategic decision this party could make.
Mitt Romney, while being a great orator, having movie-star looks and charisma, is someone of whom I am highly suspicious. I have no set stand against electing someone who is a Mormon, but electing someone who is a Mormon who was formarly pro-abortion until people starting talking about a possible presidential run back a year or two ago, well, I feel a little bit like we're dealing with a John Kerry -- or a reverse Joe Lieberman.
And Newt....well, nobody wants Newt. He can't win the general.
So look up Thompson. If you watch The Hunt for Red October again, he's the Rear Admiral who commands the carrier (R. Adm. Joshua Painter). And of course, you can see him on Law and Order.
I encourage you all to look into Fred Thompson. He's and Newt are the big Republicans who have not declared, but I believe both of them will. Nationwide, the standings at the moment look something like:
1. Rudy
2. McCain
3. Romney
4. Thompson
5. Newt
But, of course, this is the early part of the game, and so most poll participants are blue-staters, and usually left-leaning GOPers. So the projected polls for the actual realistic standings are more like this:
1. McCain
2. Romney / Thompson
3. Thompson/ Romney
4. Rudy
5. Newt
And so far, in red state straw polls, it's usually a split, with either Thompson or Romney taking the strong lead.
So, I think that everyone should take a good look at Fred Thompson, and read up on his issues. I have enormous respect for him. I still love John McCain, and he probably has a better General Election shot, but in the meantime, I am throwing in behind Fred. He's a good man.
I strongly encourage everyone to steer very clear of Rudy, Romney, and Newt. Rudy should be evident. He's a strong leader, and I think he'd be a reasonably strong internationally-inclined President, but his stand on every single social issue is untennable. Besides the ethical questions of voting for such a man, I think that electing a Republican who is left of center on all social issues and some economic is the worst strategic decision this party could make.
Mitt Romney, while being a great orator, having movie-star looks and charisma, is someone of whom I am highly suspicious. I have no set stand against electing someone who is a Mormon, but electing someone who is a Mormon who was formarly pro-abortion until people starting talking about a possible presidential run back a year or two ago, well, I feel a little bit like we're dealing with a John Kerry -- or a reverse Joe Lieberman.
And Newt....well, nobody wants Newt. He can't win the general.
So look up Thompson. If you watch The Hunt for Red October again, he's the Rear Admiral who commands the carrier (R. Adm. Joshua Painter). And of course, you can see him on Law and Order.
A Bewildered Listener
We seem, as a culture, to be gradually disqualifying certain academic pursuits in precisely the wrong order. First to go was the Science of sciences -- philosophy. It has been wholeheartedly cast out of the realm of proper academia and is now viewed as a trivial pursuit for use in poetry, in axioms on the sides of coffee cups, and on The View. Shortly thereafter, the sciences of humanities were derailed then sidelined -- still pursued, yes, but rather condescendingly. And now, science proper has become so self-righteous and puffed up that it has begun to dismantle itself. See the following:
I, of course, am no physicist, but I believe that many dimwits would be able to see the problems in what I heard this morning on PRI (NPR). The program host was interviewing various scientists about everything from time travel to space shuttles to science fiction. Lastly, a British professor was interviewed about the so-called anthropic principle.
The idea was presented as the fact that every single physical law that we encounter in the universe is completely tuned for human existence, and that all the history of the universe has fashioned itself for the perfect developement of life -- specifically human life. As the professor pointed out, the standard scientific answer for this bizarre coinky-dink is the weak anthropic principle, i.e., "That's just the way it is. If it wasn't, we wouldn't be here." The professor pointed out that this is no answer at all.
Ah, I though, here's a man who is not afraid to recognize the glaring truth of the universe.
Wrong.
What followed was a half hour of the most absurdly weird set of hypotheses on the origins of the anthropic principle might be. It came down to three answers.
First, the professor flew in the face of all logic and decided to change the rules of the argument to suit the outcome as he viewed it. This also, I think, requires some sketchy math. If you view the way the universe is as a matter of odds, then our universe is a one in quadrillions phenomenon. Quadrillions, in fact, are much to small of numbers. It possibly extends beyond where human numbers can quantify. So how can we fix this? Let's up the number of entries. If we make a quadrillion entries, then we're bound to have a perfect universe in there somehow. In short the professor claims that there are possibly trillions and trillions of universes out there, and we just happen to be the one that meshes with life. This is nothing but fantasy. We can pull any hypothesis out of thin air, and it becomes an exciting scientific theory. But the glaring truth on the face of things should be suppressed.
The second theory was even more ridiculous. The quantam theory is that essentially, these are fluid, changeable physical laws, and there is clear intentionality in the universe. Therefore, we can only assume that humans develop to such a point that someday, in the future, they will figure out how to manipulate space and time, and establish the origins of their own universe. ?????????
And then, the last theory is the pure theory of compulsion. That something in the universe drives itself to life. And that's all there is to it. This one teeters on the brink of intelligent design, and the host asked the professor if God fit into the picture, to which the professor replied that many might believe so, but that would be unscientific, and purely religious.
I wonder, what is so unscientific about that? And what is so scientific about science?
The professor also engaged in one of the most frustrating of logical contradictions. He said that if there was something scientific behind Intelligent Design (as opposed to his theories, which I suppose are just bursting with evidence) then it would be no problem. But apparently, we know there is no science in intelligent design. It's religion.
This is along the lines of saying that we'll believe O.J. was the killer the day that we see some hard evidence. The prosocutor brings out the DNA samples. Oh, we say, that can't be O.J.'s DNA -- he wasn't there, remember?
I, of course, am no physicist, but I believe that many dimwits would be able to see the problems in what I heard this morning on PRI (NPR). The program host was interviewing various scientists about everything from time travel to space shuttles to science fiction. Lastly, a British professor was interviewed about the so-called anthropic principle.
The idea was presented as the fact that every single physical law that we encounter in the universe is completely tuned for human existence, and that all the history of the universe has fashioned itself for the perfect developement of life -- specifically human life. As the professor pointed out, the standard scientific answer for this bizarre coinky-dink is the weak anthropic principle, i.e., "That's just the way it is. If it wasn't, we wouldn't be here." The professor pointed out that this is no answer at all.
Ah, I though, here's a man who is not afraid to recognize the glaring truth of the universe.
Wrong.
What followed was a half hour of the most absurdly weird set of hypotheses on the origins of the anthropic principle might be. It came down to three answers.
First, the professor flew in the face of all logic and decided to change the rules of the argument to suit the outcome as he viewed it. This also, I think, requires some sketchy math. If you view the way the universe is as a matter of odds, then our universe is a one in quadrillions phenomenon. Quadrillions, in fact, are much to small of numbers. It possibly extends beyond where human numbers can quantify. So how can we fix this? Let's up the number of entries. If we make a quadrillion entries, then we're bound to have a perfect universe in there somehow. In short the professor claims that there are possibly trillions and trillions of universes out there, and we just happen to be the one that meshes with life. This is nothing but fantasy. We can pull any hypothesis out of thin air, and it becomes an exciting scientific theory. But the glaring truth on the face of things should be suppressed.
The second theory was even more ridiculous. The quantam theory is that essentially, these are fluid, changeable physical laws, and there is clear intentionality in the universe. Therefore, we can only assume that humans develop to such a point that someday, in the future, they will figure out how to manipulate space and time, and establish the origins of their own universe. ?????????
And then, the last theory is the pure theory of compulsion. That something in the universe drives itself to life. And that's all there is to it. This one teeters on the brink of intelligent design, and the host asked the professor if God fit into the picture, to which the professor replied that many might believe so, but that would be unscientific, and purely religious.
I wonder, what is so unscientific about that? And what is so scientific about science?
The professor also engaged in one of the most frustrating of logical contradictions. He said that if there was something scientific behind Intelligent Design (as opposed to his theories, which I suppose are just bursting with evidence) then it would be no problem. But apparently, we know there is no science in intelligent design. It's religion.
This is along the lines of saying that we'll believe O.J. was the killer the day that we see some hard evidence. The prosocutor brings out the DNA samples. Oh, we say, that can't be O.J.'s DNA -- he wasn't there, remember?
Tuesday, April 10, 2007
Holidays
Like Christmas or Easter, say.
Why do the great majority observe them? It is beyond any kind of rational thought that most men and women today observe the customs and signs of Christmas, however commercial they may be for them. It absolutely defies logic, and mystifies me. And it seems incredibly sad.
They ought not to -- and they certainly seem to ultimatly do it to their detriment. It's like a drunken Friday; they go out, they spend, they lose their heads, they end up with a mix of longing for something that is gradually slipping through their fingers, and then they seem to end with nothing but incredible pain, and a wrecked body, mind, and soul.
And it seems to me that for them, neither ceasing nor carrying on is a real option. Because they have none. It will always be empty without it, and it will always be empty with. And if, for a moment, so many of those lost in the mad frenzy of their party stop, and look at themselves, they find something so horrible and a revulsion so powerful that the only way to respond is to continue dancing the ridiculous, irrational dance.
They will keep on observing the signs lifelessly, drowning, and then one way or another, some day, they will realize why.
Why do the great majority observe them? It is beyond any kind of rational thought that most men and women today observe the customs and signs of Christmas, however commercial they may be for them. It absolutely defies logic, and mystifies me. And it seems incredibly sad.
They ought not to -- and they certainly seem to ultimatly do it to their detriment. It's like a drunken Friday; they go out, they spend, they lose their heads, they end up with a mix of longing for something that is gradually slipping through their fingers, and then they seem to end with nothing but incredible pain, and a wrecked body, mind, and soul.
And it seems to me that for them, neither ceasing nor carrying on is a real option. Because they have none. It will always be empty without it, and it will always be empty with. And if, for a moment, so many of those lost in the mad frenzy of their party stop, and look at themselves, they find something so horrible and a revulsion so powerful that the only way to respond is to continue dancing the ridiculous, irrational dance.
They will keep on observing the signs lifelessly, drowning, and then one way or another, some day, they will realize why.
A Touch of Hematoma
Hematoma is a good word. Hematoma. I like to say it. Hematoma. Hematoma.
I have a Hematoma. It's a bruise, really. So there I was, for real, today -- slamming my hand between two immesurably hard things (things very probably measurably hard -- but my hand was immeasurably softer). Lo! In about 5 hot seconds, there was a lovely shade of -- what was it? Something between lilac and Tyrian Purple with a touch of magenta about the edges -- spreading visibly across the palm, heel and thumb of my hand. Also, it swelled up like a cow's udder, quickly becoming cushiony -- even a bit spongy and doughy.
Hematoma. Hematoma. Hematoma.
It would appear that I have not suffered a traditional bruise -- the smashing and mashing of various surface vascular midgets, resulting in subcutaneous capillarial sanguination. Nor did I enjoy the cool ooze of veinous drippage. I believe this is none other than a traumatized Ulner or even branch thereof. Yes, pretties. Arterial.
Hematoma. Hematoma. Hematoma.
Shantih Shantih Shantih
I have a Hematoma. It's a bruise, really. So there I was, for real, today -- slamming my hand between two immesurably hard things (things very probably measurably hard -- but my hand was immeasurably softer). Lo! In about 5 hot seconds, there was a lovely shade of -- what was it? Something between lilac and Tyrian Purple with a touch of magenta about the edges -- spreading visibly across the palm, heel and thumb of my hand. Also, it swelled up like a cow's udder, quickly becoming cushiony -- even a bit spongy and doughy.
Hematoma. Hematoma. Hematoma.
It would appear that I have not suffered a traditional bruise -- the smashing and mashing of various surface vascular midgets, resulting in subcutaneous capillarial sanguination. Nor did I enjoy the cool ooze of veinous drippage. I believe this is none other than a traumatized Ulner or even branch thereof. Yes, pretties. Arterial.
Hematoma. Hematoma. Hematoma.
Shantih Shantih Shantih
Monday, April 2, 2007
A Puncheon of Rum
I chanced to be seated in an easy chair in the midst of a lush wood on Friday, with a scruptious velarium of oaks and pines suitably posited above, enjoying a bit of good quiet and the quite propitious weather. I devoured a thoroughly enjoyable volume, which was nothing less than a delicate literary comestible, and happened upon a story that was thoroghly less than pedestrian.
I read Poe often, and scarecly find him other than thoroughly macabre and cadaverous; yet his unnatural style is readable and fantastic.
So it was that I discoverd The Angel of the Odd, a story by Poe. It is, in fact, the purest and most delightful comedy.
Read it.
Or you will be afflicted by the most putrifying disease -- even so! -- and your last thoughts will be as you see in the afterlife strange demons declaring your death -- before your very eyes they will announce your doom!
I read Poe often, and scarecly find him other than thoroughly macabre and cadaverous; yet his unnatural style is readable and fantastic.
So it was that I discoverd The Angel of the Odd, a story by Poe. It is, in fact, the purest and most delightful comedy.
Read it.
Or you will be afflicted by the most putrifying disease -- even so! -- and your last thoughts will be as you see in the afterlife strange demons declaring your death -- before your very eyes they will announce your doom!
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
