Saturday, February 9, 2008

Tom Brady Fails [chat]

Dear Tom Brady,


Your pal,

Friday, February 8, 2008

Interview with john a. powell

Race-The Power of an Illusion
Read this. I find it to be interesting. He spouts truth. He spoke at the Freedom Center last night, however I missed it due to a dodge ball game.


So, Karl Rove joined Fox News, Mitt Romney said that if we elect Obama or Clinton we're all going to die, Mike Huckabee doesn't "believe in" evolution, and Demonology Spec warlocks participate in 25 man raids.

While each of these topics merit a rant of their own (aside: What the fuck does BELIEF have to do with evolution, anyway?) I think that there is a common factor, a common misunderstanding and fundamental mistake, in each of these situations which ought to be addressed:

What is correct?

I mean that not in the sense of "Which of these possible answers is correct?" but rather in the sense of what is correct; what is it to be correct? How is correctness determined? What are right and wrong, correct and incorrect?

To answer this question we must first confront a dilemma: If we know not what is correct then how are we to determine the correct means by which we may determine what correct is?

To overcome this dilemma we must think. We must abandon our entrenched indoctrination and intellectually explore the concept for what it is rather than what one thinks it ought to be. We must seek the answer while we seek the means. We must do philosophy.

When we think about correct and what it is in any situation for a thing to be correct we can easily determine what correct is not. Correct is not empirical. Correct is not subjective or objective. Correct is not moral. Correct is not ethical. Correct is not hypothetical, inculcated, arbitrary, or a revelation.

Correct, right, incorrect, wrong is the result of a process in which beings who correct assess a thing and so determine its correctness, rightness, incorrectness, wrongness. Correct is like purpose. Beings who purpose denote purpose onto objects, thoughts. In the same way beings who correct denote correct onto thoughts, opinions, actions. But what is the means by which correctness is denoted? How is correctness determined?


Correct exists within a context for correctness. What is ethically correct, morally correct, empirically correct, subjectively correct, rationally correct, emotionally correct, mathematically correct, scientifically correct, theologically correct is determined via an assessment of the thing within the context in which correctness is assessed.

If one draws a picture of an apple what is the correct color for the apple to be? To answer this question we must know the context for correctness. Is it a black and white picture? Is this an apple based upon our world of apples or some other realm of apples in which Lilac, grey, and chartreuse are the only options? What kind of apple?

Correctness is always only ever contextual. But how to assess the contexts for correctness? How to determine correctness between a religious and non-religious context, a legal context and a moral context?


While creating an absolute hierarchical ranking of contexts for correctness is incredibly difficult given the contextual nature of correct we can assess conflicting and differing contexts; we can compare the contextual correctness of multiple contexts. Take the examples of rationalism and empiricism. How would one contextually assess the contextual correctness of either context? Stated simply: Which is the best context?

The answer to this question will, of course, be contextual. Rationalism and Empiricism are each the result of different contextual needs and views which, themselves, result from differing contexts users mistakenly hold to be most contextually relevant and meaningful. In actuality, though, either of these contexts, in fact all contexts, exist as a result of the one fundamental context:


Correct is about life; human beings existing in the world purposing, correcting, acting, thinking, being. All contexts have a primary foundation of our being in the world existing as beings who context and so correct. From our being in the world, our existing, we can determine the correct contextual context for correct; the context most wholly harmonious with our being in the world.

Now work forward from life, from your everyday experience of being in the world and you'll understand why Mitt Romney is wrong, why Mike Huckabee is a dolt, and why people who bring Demonology Spec Warlocks to Gruul's Lair are fucking idiots.

WoW Miniatures

World of Warcraft miniatures game.

So MMO, TCG, Board Game, miniatures game.

At least they haven't developed a pen and paper system.

Thursday, February 7, 2008

Romney v Huckabee

Since the Republican Presidential Hullabaloo is down to McCain, Romney, and Huckabee I need to make a decision: I need to decide whether I hate Romney or Huckabee more. This is an important, possibly life changing decision which will influence the focus of my hate and scorn for weeks, even months to come. So who do I hate more? Let's get right to it.

Huckabee: Ex-Southern Baptist Minister
Romney: Mormon

My hatred of Mormonism is well known. But while Romney is a Mormon, Huckabee was a Minister. This is a very close competition but when combined "Southern Baptist" and "minister" defeat "mormon" any day.

Winner: Huckabee

Huckabee: Opposed to abortion including cases of rape or incest. He has stated that abortion should be legal only when the life of the mother is at risk.
Romney: Opposed to abortion except in cases of rape, incest, and when the life of the mother is threatened

Huckabee and Romney both desire to overturn Roe v. Wade. While Huckabee has been a consistent Fetus Fetishizing Fuck Romney has at times described himself as "Pro-Choice", depending on the audience to whom he is speaking. Romney also allows for more situations in which Abortion ought to be legal. Since I am a baby killin' heathen I must give this category to Huckabee.

Winner: Huckabee

Guantanamo Bay
Huckabee: Guantanamo Bay is a distraction from the War on Terror
Romney: "We ought to double Guantanamo."

Winner: Romney

Huckabee: "We have to continue the surge, and let me explain why. When I was a little kid, if I went into a store with my mother, she had a simple rule for me: If I picked something off the shelf at the store and I broke it, I bought it. I learned I don't pick something off the shelf I can't afford to buy. Well, what we did in Iraq, we essentially broke it. It's our responsibility to do the best we can to try to fix it before we just turn away."
Romney: "so long as there is a reasonable prospect of success, our wisest course is to seek stability in Iraq, with additional troops endeavoring to secure the civilian population."

I hate how Huckabee has a stupid fucking story for every one of his god damned positions.

Winner: Huckabee

Huckabee: "I do not necessarily buy into the traditional Darwinian theory, personally."
Romney: "Governor Romney believes both science and faith can help inform us about the origins of life in this world."

Science & Faith > Faith

Winner: Huckabee

Gun Control
Huckabee: "The Second Amendment is primarily about tyranny and self-defense, not hunting. The Founding Fathers wanted us to be
able to defend ourselves from our own government, if need be, and from all threats to our lives and property."
Romney: "So I'm a hunter and believe in Second Amendment rights, but I also believe that assault weapons are not needed in the public population."

While I don't know what the second amendment is trying to say I'm pretty sure that it is not about hunting.

Winner: Romney

Huckabee: Entrenched Creationist Fetus Fetishizing Fuck
Romney: Will tell you what you want to hear despite what he said the previous day.

I appreciate flip-flopping John Kerry-esque change more than entrenched assholeish dipshittery.

Winner: Huckabee

Those are the main categories about which I care with regard to the differences between these two candidates. So, let's get to the final result.

Final Score:
Huckabee: 5
Romney: 2

Congratulations to Mike Huckabee! You are more worthy of scorn and contempt than Mitt "The Garden of Eden was in Missouri" Romney.


Romney to suspend his presidential bid

(narrows eyes)

Alright, Huckabee.

It is on.

Wednesday, February 6, 2008

Zero Punctuation: COD4

Total Delegates

We have MSNBC's Total Delegate Counts.

838 - Obama
834 - Clinton
26 - Edwards

720 - McCain
256 - Romney
194 - Huckabee


Update: Apparently no one knows anything and delegate counts are meaningless. Or something.

32 Gig iPhone

When one buys a computer, cell phone, car, etc. they do so with the knowledge that it will one day be outdated. If one buys an 800 processor one accepts the fact that eventually there will be a 900. This is simply how technological development functions and most people accept this.

Apple, it seems, has decided to utilize this mentality to fuck over its customers.

Apple recently announced that it is offering new versions of the iPhone and iPod Touch with double the memory of previous versions. This news pissed people off. And rightly so.

Remember three paragraphs ago when I said that technology is forever progressing and one buys a device with the knowledge that it will one day be outdated? One of the assumptions therein is that discovery is what brings forth new technological advances and developments; one buys the 800 because the 900 does not yet exist.

There was no discovery involved in the new iPhone or Ipod Touch; Apple simply added more memory. In all ways they could have initially released the Ipod Touch with 32 gigs of storage. They could have initially released the iPhone with 16 gigs of storage.

But they didn't.

And that's what makes Steve Jobs a douche. Apple is not progressing along a technological curve releasing the best products at any given time for their customers. Apple is trying to milk its customers.

Ask yourself this: Why didn't Apple release a 32 gig iPhone?

The answer is not that Apple is unable to do so, that it is technologically impossible at this point in time. Rather, they choose not to because if they release a 32 gig iPhone now they'll have nothing to release in 4 months after people buy the 16 gig iPhone.

Ask yourself this: Why didn't Apple release a 3G iPhone?

The answer is not that Apple is unable to do so, that is is technologically impossible at this point in time. Rather, they choose not to because if they release a 3G iPhone they'll miss out on all the profits they can make from people buying the current version of the iPhone. When people stop buying the current version after a few memory upgrades? They'll release a 3G version.

Apple is not concerned about its customers. Apple is concerned about its profits and market share. Apple is trying to milk you for all it possibly can. Apple is limiting your options and abilities from a desire for increased profits rather than any physical or technological limitation.

Which, just to remind you, is the sort of shit that Microsoft pulled which made you go to Apple/Linux in the first place.

Tuesday, February 5, 2008

Paul Dissek is fucking stupid.

I love it when people interview voters.

In Buffalo, N.Y., Paul Dissek, 63, waited alone in the fog outside a library for the polling station to open. A year after retiring from Bethlehem Steel, he lost his health coverage and pays for it himself now. His choice: Clinton, who proposes to make health insurance mandatory.

“I lost my health insurance with the steel plant,” he said. “I figure she’d be the one to get it.”

Yes, Paul Dissek. Certainly Hillary Clinton's plan to make health insurance mandatory will fix your problem of having to buy your own health insurance. Because, you see, if health insurance is mandatory then we'll be required to purchase it. And since you already purchase your own health insurance Hillary's law will...not have any effect on you at all.

You fucking dolt.

Monday, February 4, 2008

Christians, Pots, and Kettles

How am I supposed to react to shit like this:

"Malaysian customs officials seized 32 Bibles from a traveler, a church federation said Monday, adding its voice to a raft of complaints that the Muslim-majority country is becoming less tolerant of other religions."

I'll say this simply: What in the name of Jesus "butt fucking" "pogo stick riding" "chicken basket inhabiting" Christ is wrong with these dolts? How little self-awareness must a Christian have to fault other religions for being intolerant?

Have you never heard William Donohue talk? Have you not visited or heard about the Creation Museum? Have you read the fucking Old Testament? Have you not been paying attention for the past six years to the United States? Malaysia is intolerant of non-Muslims? Christians are intolerant of Muslims. Christians are intolerant of atheists and agnostics. Hell, Christians are intolerant of OBJECTIVE, EMPIRICAL, OBSERVEABLE REALITY!

"However, the minorities have become increasingly worried that their constitutionally guaranteed right to worship is being gradually eroded. In a recent case that undermined minority confidence, the government banned the word "Allah" from Malay-language Bibles and other Christian publications, saying the word can only be used by Muslims."

How faulty do these people's memories have to be to not remember all of the bitching Christians did when Keith Ellison carried a Quran to his swearing in ceremony?

"Indians have also been enraged that their Hindu temples have been demolished by state authorities. Many legal disputes involving Muslims and non-Muslims have been ruled in favor of Muslims."

The Supreme Court said Tuesday that a Muslim inmate cannot sue the government over the disappearance of the prisoner's copies of the Quran and a prayer rug.

How about Christians start praying for some self-awareness? How about that?

Fucking idiots.

Giants, Patriots, and Inevitability

The best part about Superbowl 42 is that one need not understand football to appreciate it. If you google "patriots will win" and read the articles that appear you'll understand why Superbowl 42 was so freaking awesome. Throughout the season there was a sense of inevitablility, that Tom Brady and Bill Belichick were destined to win. And they did win.

Every game but the Super Bowl.

Tom Brady, the media's pretty boy darling, failed. Bill Belichick, the asshole, got his comeuppance. And most importantly the New York Giants told the media's fabricated inevitability to go fuck itself.

That is the most refreshing, empowering aspect of the outcome: reality exists independent of our attitudes and predictions and assumptions; human beings are incapable of knowing the future. While we embrace statistics, history, emotions, opinions of experts, and various other fabrications to delude ourselves into thinking that we know more than we actually know the simple truth is this:

The New England Patriots lost.

That is the lesson of Super Bowl 42. The fabrications we embrace to provide the illusion of permanence and predictability are, in fact, mere fabrications. We cannot actually Know what will happen. As much as we hate it we are ignorant of the future.

But feel free to ignore the lesson and focus on the memory of Tom Brady's faced being smashed into the ground.