All These Moments

The Great Firewall of China Blocks Plurk

2009-04-23T21:34:00.003-05:00

Plurk Layouts and Amix.dk report that Plurk has fallen victim to the Great Firewall of China, just like WordPress, YouTube, and parts of Wikipedia. This is not very surprising. The Chinese government has a considerable history of censoring websites with content they find politically undesireable.

What leads to a bit of head-scratching is that Twitter remains accessible in China. No one knows for sure why there is such a difference in enforcement, and the difference is confusing since Plurk is one of the websites introduced as, "It's like Twitter but..."

The difference in enforcement may just lie in the last word of that phrase. How is Plurk different from Twitter? Plurk pages are more customizable and the UI utilizes a horizontally scrolling timeline to surf posts, but these are merely aesthetic differences. Another major difference is that Plurk threads responses to a post instead of having a response posted on the user's timeline. (That is, a response is posted as a comment in a thread and not like an individual post, in case any non-Plurkers are confused.) I suspect that this is the reason why Plurk is blocked while Twitter remains accessible. The response structure on Plurk lends itself more to ongoing discussion, whereas responses on Twitter are usually kept to one tweet.

"[P]lurk is like a mini UN," Matthew Hughes once posted. Although most Plurks don't usually lead to intense political discussion, Hughes is still correct in asserting that there is a community on Plurk that is pretty dedicated to political discussion. I cannot speak for the (former?) Chinese Plurk community, since I don't know any Chinese, but I assume that this trend remains true despite language or region.

This could all be completely wrong though. Although it sounds like a reasonable explanation, we have to keep in mind that this is the People's Republican of China we are discussing. It is just as likely that I am looking for reason where there is none. Perhaps some Chinese official saw a single Plurk that displeased him and brought the hammer down on the whole website. No matter what reason the PRC has for blocking Plurk, it doesn't change the fact that practice of internet censorship is ethically reprehensible. I feel bad for the Chinese Plurkers who will now be left to find a new site to have discussions on. (I hear that Twitter site isn't too bad...)

Click here if you want to check out Plurk and join the fun.

Oh What a Circus Posted at College Republicans (With Problems)

2009-04-15T14:21:00.003-05:00

So, this was my first article posted to the College Republicans at Texas blog, regrettably the Youtube videos were not embedded properly. This is most likely my own fault; I probably need to become more familiar with posting in WordPress. I can't edit my articles at the College Republicans at Texas blog as easily as I can hear, (not complaining, just stating) so in the meantime here is the same article, complete with my Youtube videos of the event:

I'll give the protesters credit: they were rather successful at interrupting David Horowitz's speech (before they were told that any further interruption would result in arrest, that is). No doubt they consider their protest a result because of this, but if they took some perspective they would realize their protest was a complete failure. Their protesting methods did nothing but to hurt their cause and reveal just how indoctrinated and foolish they were. Rather than being proud, they should be ashamed, and no one should be more Ashamed than Dana Cloud.

Before addressing Dana Cloud, one must first understand the methods of the protesters that she condoned. There is nothing more ironic than seeing a mob chant "free speech" in order to drown out a single disstening voice. One cannot watch such a scene without being taken back to the bleating sheep in George Orwell's Animal Farm. The message these protesters were sending is pretty clear: Free speech is free until someone starts making a point they don't like, at which point the person must be silenced by chanting. "Free speech" was far from the only chant they had.

The protesters would also yell "Fact check!" at Horowitz. This can actually be an effective protesting strategy, but only in moderation and only if his facts were, in fact, incorrect. Instead, it seems the protesters chose the exact opposite strategy. At one point during the speech the protesters would yell fact check at Horowitz at the end of almost every sentence. This spam was not due to an inundation of dubious facts being used by Horowitz. Actually, every time I fact checked at the suggestion of the protesters, the fact they were disputing was correct. At one point we became so frustrated that we sent someone over to inform a protesters that Horowitz was correct when he had previously called for a fact check. "Ok," was his response. Apparently it is not the actually reality of the fact that they care about, but rather they use the appeal to fact checking as another chant to interrupt Horowitz. If the protesters ever decide that they'd rather have their "fact check" strategy be persuasive to some degree, they should learn to yell fact check only when the fact Horowitz is referring to is actually incorrect.

Another common chant was "No more witch hunts!" Perhaps it is my turn to yell: Fact check! Horowitz has never actually called for a professor to be fired, but rather, he has only highlighted professors who are guilty of radical bias in the classroom. Horowitz even said during his speech (not that the protesters were giving it a close listen) that he has no problem with Marxist professors, his only problem is if they teach "Marxism…as if it is Newtonian physics." Dana Cloud said that Horowitz was still guilty of "leading" a witch hunt, and the protesters agreed saying that he provided "ammunition" for the witch hunts. This is incredibly weak reasoning. There is an enormous difference between "leading" a witch hunt and writing a book with facts that are used as "ammunition" to go on a "witch hunt." A few further facts about witch hunting need to be clarified as well. "Witch hunts" are generally an angry, irrational mob. Also, witch is used in the term witch hunts very intentionally, because witches do not exist. However, professors who use their classroom as a platform for political activism do exist, so comparing a professor being fired for legitimate reasons to an angry mob burning a woman for being something that she couldn't possibly be is a fallacy.

I took a video of the behavior of the protesters at the speech. Apparently some protesters think we were photographing and videotaping them in order to identify them later and retaliate. This is not true at all. All I plan on doing is sharing the video online so that people can see just how irrational and obnoxious the protesters were. We are guilty of their accusation only if you equate with "posting on youtube" with "retaliation."

Note: This is actually a video of Horowitz's introduction, but it still accurately represents the behavior of the protesters.

Who could be counted among these protesters? The esteemed professor Dana Cloud of course. She declined the opportunity to co-host the even with David Horowitz in order to take the high road and support irrational and obnoxious protesters. It seems to me that any respectable UT professor would discourage the Orwellian tactics of the protesters and encourage them to engage in rational political discourse. Regrettably, this was not the case at all. Horowitz condoned the behavior while at the same time claiming to be opposed to the "hysteria" that Horowitz supposedly encourages.

Cloud stepped up to the mic during the Q&A section of Horowitz's speech, and I recorded her speech and Horowitz's response.

A number of things need to be said to put this video in context. The applause at the beginning happened at the urging of David Horowitz, who politely introduced her by saying, "Professor Cloud, lets give Professor Cloud a round of applause everyone." Perhaps I am crazy, but it seems to me that the person who condones the frenzied chanting of protesters is the one guilty of promoting hysteria, not the person who politely asks a round of applause be given for his or her opponent.

When you listen to Cloud in the video you may get the impression that Horowitz spent his whole speech trashing her. This is not true at all. In fact, Horowitz never once singled out Cloud in his speech. The only time Horowitz mentioned her was when he was being interrupted, and described the protesters as "Dana Cloud's circus."

Cloud begins her speech by making an excellent point, but also by presenting it in a very disingenuous way. She says, "I think it's important to notice that faculty can separate their activism from their teaching. … [W]e have separate arenas for our lives. I have a family. I go home and cook supper. I don't cook supper for my students." This argument is entirely reasonable. I absolutely agree with Cloud. You know who else does? David Horowitz, except he was booed when he made the exact same point. I mentioned earlier that Horowitz specifically said that he has no problem with Marxists professors, as long as they don't teach their students Marxism "as if it is Newtonian physics." This is exactly the same point that Cloud made. They both agree on the same point that activism should be kept out of the classroom (a point that many radical professors do not agree with, by the way). The only point of disagreement is whether or not Cloud is guilty of allowing her activism to creep into the classroom or not. The honest thing for Cloud to do would be to acknowledge that she and Horowitz agree on this point, but disagree on where the line is drawn. Cloud was disingenuous and chose to present this as an opposing view instead.

Next Cloud uses passive voice, a staple strategy of politics. She says, "The hysteria that gets whipped up around these figures like myself … that hysteria actually has consequences in the real lives of people." Her sentence never specifically identifies who has whipped up the hysteria around figures like herself. This is because she is guilty of whipping up this hysteria. Horowitz has written about Cloud, and in his book he accused her of activism in the classroom. Dana Cloud sat with the protesters and condoned their protesting methods. She did nothing to discourage their behavior, even as a UT representative had to ask the protesters multiple times to allow Horowitz to give his speech. Dana Cloud intends for the target of this quote to be David Horowitz, but the only person who was guilty of whipping up hysteria that night was herself. I agree with her general point, and I suggest that if she really feels this way that the next opportunity she has to whip up hysteria she should decline the opportunity rather than encourage it like she chose to do that night.

Cloud's final argument relied entirely on emotional appeal. She described UT students as brilliant. "Since the students at UT are so brilliant how can one believe they can be indoctrinated?" That was essentially the argument she made. This kind of "rah-rah, UT is the best" rhetoric is wonderful for football games and March Madness, but it has no place in a serious political discussion. I love UT, but it is ridiculous to suggest that every student her in immune to being indoctrinated. It must have taken a severe lack of irony to suggest that students at UT cannot be indoctrinated while she stood 20 feet away from more than a dozen examples of just how brainwashed some students can become.

Oh Snap! People Actually Read My Blog

2009-04-13T15:28:00.008-05:00

It's true, I actually have readers, and some of them even like my blog! When I was asked if I'd be interested in blogging for College Republicans at UT I immediately said yes.

My first article was posted, but it is just the same as my Horowitz Liveblog post on here. I'll be sure to update you guys on here whenever I post again.

So basically I plan on posting my thoughtful political entries at utexascrs.org, while all my boring, nerdy, and personal entries will remain here. You should totally keep your RSS subscription to this site and add the UT College Republicans RSS as well, because they have tons of other awesome articles.

My Liveblog from Horowitz's Speech

2009-04-11T03:49:00.004-05:00

This may seem redundant since I linked to my twitter profile in the previous entry, but it makes sense if you think long-term. My twitter profile has non-political stuff as well. (A.k.a. boring personal crap.) So I decided to post my Horowitz liveblog here in order to make it accessible without forcing people to click "back" repeatedly on my twitter profile.

Also, these are just my immediate observations during the event. I will post my analysis and reactions as soon as I can.

6:55 - I just overheard someone say, "Don't you think it would be fun to be a conservative here?" Yes, yes it is.

7:09 - Protesters are inside now, chanting very loud.

7:12 - They're delaying his speech with their chanting.

7:16 - There's something Orwellian about chanting "free speech" in order to drown out someone else.

7:20 - I will give the protesters credit, their presence is much more obnoxious than when we host John Ashcroft.

7:21 - I talked with a woman who was a part of College Republicans in Wisconsin, she said when Horowitz visited they were spit on.

7:23 - Some of the older conservatives are very upset and demanding that the protesters be thrown out for their third violation. (It's way past 3.)

7:24 - The younger conservatives are less irritated, but we are becoming less amused as it goes on.

7:25 - Horowitz says he has never personally called for a liberal professor to be fired. They say he is still guilty for providing "ammunition."

7:25 - Horowitz reminds them that there is a Q&A section if they want to rant at him, but apparently they don't want to wait.

7:27 - The protesters keep making snippy remarks and overlaughing. Someone goes "hur hur hur." It made me laugh.

7:30 - The talk just got completely shut down. Now they're talking about ejecting the protesters.

7:31 - "Who's the censor now?!" They're chanting. Well... aren't they guilty of censorship?

7:31 - An uneasy quiet just went over the room.

7:33 - He says he has no objection to Marxists teaching at a University, provided that they do it professionally.

7:34 - He says, "I think teachers should teach students how to think, not what to think."

7:36 - "Students are presented with political doctrine as if it is the truth."

7:37 - "A teacher is obligated not to indoctrinate his or her students."

7:40 - A protester just said something about the Iraq War. Seriously?! I guess no matter what the issue is liberals are right because of the Iraq War.

7:41 - Horowitz said he read countless Marxist and socialist literature, and never once read a chapter on how to develop wealth.

7:42 - Someone shouted, "How many people are unemployed now?"

7:42 - Third strike. (Officially.) They were told that any further disruption will result in removal and possibly arrest and academic discipline.

7:45 - "I have an objection if a University claims to honor the principles of academic freedom if it indoctrinates students."

7:46 - A lot of protesters are leaving. Looks like their fun is over if they can't chant like sheep.

7:47 - "The students who suffer most in such an academic setting are the liberal and left-wing students."

7:49 - "If you teach Marxism in a university as if it is Newtonian physics, you are guilty of indoctrination."

7:51 - "How many of you hear have been taught that gender is a social construct?" - "Because it IS," one girl interjects.

7:51 - Hopefully that girl means "gender roles" are social constructs, because there are clearly identifiably biological differences for gender.

7:52 - A pic of the protesters from earlier: http://i40.tinypic.com/2nlzi9j.jpg

7:53 - Of course, the protesters have calmed down a bit now: http://i42.tinypic.com/6p86cn.jpg

7:56 - If you believe sexual hierarchy is so prevalent, why have three of the last four Secretaries of State been women?

7:57 - If you believe the racial hierarchy is so prevalent, then why is the most powerful man in the world black?

7:57 - Now he's talking about Oprah Winfrey, who is the only person that can make any book a bestseller by recommending it. (Something I loathe.)

7:58 - He describes Oprah as the most powerful figure in the private sector. He's probably right.

7:59 - He mentions that Oprah has all this power and respect over an audience that has largely never been to any sort of "sensitivity training."

8:00 - One girl among the protesters was briefly crying.

8:03 - He just said that some of the classes teach that we're a, "racist, sexist, classist, homophobic society." Someone murmured, "True that."

8:08 - "Cornel's CD is a watershed in the history of rap recording." A quote from Cornel West's brother. LALS.

8:08 - "Cornel West has not written a scholarly paper in 20 years."

8:09 - I wish he had mentioned Richard Thompson Ford, my personal favorite black intellectual.

8:11 - Horowitz says that it's a shame to blacks that jokes like West are held up while real black scholars are ignored. Amen.

8:12 - He mentioned one class titled "Great Religious Thinkers" which included scholars such as... Tupac Shakur.

8:13 - "I was called a racist for objecting to a black professor who was an idiot." (Referring to the professor he criticized for including Tupac.)

8:23 - Marxism doesn't work because "you can't get someone to work for somebody else the way they work for themselves."

8:25 - "We can't all think if we're just going to chant together." Loud applause after that statement by Horowitz.

8:26 - Q&A time. Our fearless leader Mike Garcia is defining for people where the line starts.

8:27 - The line looks mostly filled with crazies. Should be fun.

8:27 - "Marxism is a church itself."

8:29 - Someone from the Daily Texan is here to ask a question.

8:31 - He brought up the example of a military hierarchy having mobility while still being a hierarchy to explain the positions of Oprah and Obama.

8:34 - He said women control most of the wealth in America, and they yelled "Fact check" at him.

8:35 - Here's the fact check: "Women control 51.3 percent of the private wealth in the United States." http://tinyurl.com/2vvyne

8:36 - Oh snap! Dana Cloud is about to ask a question. She is a professor he has written about previously.

8:36 - He said, "Lets give Dana Cloud a hand." Very polite.

8:50 - Speech is over now.

Liveblogging David Horowitz

2009-04-09T20:05:00.001-05:00

The David Horowitz speech has been pretty intensely interrupted by protesters making fools of themselves. It's been going on for awhile and I neglected to give noticed at the beginning. Anyway, I am currently liveblogging the event on my twitter page.

http://twitter.com/allthosemoments

The Overdue Data Pop Entry

2009-04-03T16:14:00.005-05:00

So, two weeks ago I mostly stayed in Austin for Spring Break. (I also had a two-day visit to Sea World.) During the break I went to some awesome SXSW stuff like Screen Burn and the AMoDA Showcase. However, the best event at Spring Break was not a SXSW event, it was Data Pop 2009. It was awesome.

Data Pop was a chiptune concert. If you are not familiar with this genre do not despair. Chiptune is nay one of those douchey terms that hipsters will judge you for not being familiar with, rather it is the complete opposite. If you don't know what chiptune music is it just means you're not a nerd. (You are missing out, by the way.) Chiptune music is music composed using sound chips from game systems. The most popular choice is the Game Boy, which has had the most extensive cartridge development for artists and is featured on the logo for 8-bit Collective. A good, quick explanation and demonstration of 8-bit music is the trailer for Blip Festival: Reformat the Planet, a documentary about chiptune music.

There were tons of good acts at Data Pop. The first band was the favorite act for two of my friends. The band was called 8-bit OK, and we talked to them later and found out this was their first ever performance! They're real new and don't even have a website yet. Anamanaguchi was awesome too, and I actually spent $10 on their new album Radiant Dawn. (So worth it.) The two closing acts were Bit Shifter and Nullsleep, who are two enormous names in chiptune music. If you see them perform it becomes pretty clear why; those guys are amazing.

We were right up by the stage for most of the performance, so I got some amazingly good concert footage. In fact, Anamanaguchi put one of my videos of them in a blog entry. Awesome! Here is the link to their blog entry, and my video is below. (In their blog entry they say I took the video from onstage, but that is not true. Now I wish I had gone on stage since it seems they wouldn't have cared.)

I have more videos on my youtube page of Bit Shifter, Nullsleep, and a few other artists from the show if you want to check it out.

Ashcroft at UT

2009-03-28T23:56:00.003-05:00

Any discussion of sound bites includes the Mark Twain quote: "A minimum of sound to a maximum of sense." This expresses how a proper sound bite should not just be pithy, but properly capture the point the speaker is making. This, of course, is contrary to how sound bites are utilized in mainstream American politics. Instead, the perfect sound bite is one that can be used to create a caricature of the speaker's intention in order to attack his or her general point. I attended John Ashcroft's speech at the University of Texas last week, and I think the media coverage of this event typifies this sort of behavior.

"I don't have a mark on my conscience."
One quote that is repeatedly tossed around is Ashcroft declaring, "I don't have a mark on my conscience." "Well, no conscience no marks," Keith Olbermann snidely assesses. It is certainly more convenient to simply play this quote. Conservatives can pat themselves on the back, feeling reaffirmed that nothing whatsoever has been done wrong. Liberals can have a laugh to themselves at Ashcroft's expense and rant to each other about how evil the Patriot Act is. Who does this help? Nobody, it seems to me. This kind of rhetoric more closely resembles sharks feeding on chum than constructive political discourse. These kinds of sound bites do nothing to encourage discussion on important issues and serve only to keep everyone complacent in their political beliefs. I think we owe it to ourselves, and the 79th Attorney General, to pick some sound bites that reflect Twain's "maximum of sense" rather than the "maximum of convenience" that most news sources prefer.

"[Freedom] is worthless absent consequence."
It seems to me that only the most insane of anarchists would disagree with this quote, but before expounding on such an encompassing statement I should first pin down specifically what Ashcroft meant. Ashcroft is essentially repeating the timeless expression that "we are a nation of laws." Even when we disagree with laws, we are bound to respect and follow them because of our belief in democracy. This is a simple thing to say that almost everyone can agree on, but like all such statements the simplicity in which it can be expressed does not reflect its simplicity in practice.

This same principle was leveled against Ashcroft by his critics, who believe that he broke the law and should be in jail. (Never far behind are criticisms of former President George W. Bush.) Ashcroft was asked numerous times during Q&A why he was not in jail. One woman even tried to turn Ashcroft's rhetoric back at him, asking why he was not in jail if he sincerely believes what he says. "We did not break the law," Ashcroft said simply, but of course his critics disagree. This begs the question, why don't we hear critics using this sound bite? If Ashcroft man is so demonstratively guilty than this sound bite is devastating. The man is a criminal, he used his influence to avoid justice, and-to top it all off-he is a complete hypocrite. He champions the very political philosophy that he blatantly disregarded. The answer is obvious; Ashcroft is not the evil criminal that his critics make him out to be.

Critics avoid this sound bite in order to avoid a real discourse about his actions because in that scenario they have no guarantee of being vindicated. Not all blame goes to his critics, plenty of Ashcroft supporters are guilty of avoiding this same discussion because they, too, have no guarantee that they will be vindicated. What results is two antagonistic groups avoiding one of Ashcroft's more salient sound bites in favor of a dull one which each group can either praise or mock as they see fit. Instead, critics and supporters alike should focus on the kind of sound bites which Mark Twain would approve of, because they lead to an informative disccussion of Ashcroft's decisions as Attorney General, the most controversial of which is the Patriot Act.

"The Patriot Act was a conglomeration of previous law enforcement strategies."
This was actually news to me. The Patriot Act is probably the only Act you can expect the average American to be familiar with. The Patriot Act is that it is entirely the creation of John Ashcroft and the Bush Administration. "Author of the Patriot Act," and "Chief Architect of the Patriot Act," are the most popular ways of referring to Ashcroft. This fact reveals Ashcroft's role to be that of a person collecting previous legislation, rather than someone sitting down and penning new laws that infringe on the civil liberties of American citizens. This means everything in the Patriot Act had legal precedent.

One who accepts this fact is still entitled to oppose the Patriotic Act, but the struggle becomes a process of voting (even on years without a presidential election, snore) and writing to Senators and Congressman (too long, did not write). Opponents ignore this sound bite, and the truth it reflects, because it undermines the energy and antagonism they like to feel towards Ashcroft. After accepting this truth, it is impossible to argue that Ashcroft should be sent to jail, one can only hope to change the law to prevent another Attorney General from repeating what he has done. Acceptance means one is reduced to opposing the Patriot Act rather than resisting it. Acceptance means the romance is gone. Acceptance also means that opponents of the Patriot Act would be forced to acknowledge its legal precedents and its practice. This is inconvenient because it makes the act much less ominous.

Ashcroft's explanation of roving wiretaps is a perfect example. This practiced back in 1988 in order to track drug dealers. Warrantless, rather than roving, has become a popular word to describe such wiretaps. This practice started in 1988 in order to keep up with drug dealers. Why, in 1988, did "warrantless" wiretaps become necessary to track drug dealers? Because the way warrants were issued was becoming cumbersome. Before 1988, investigators had to get a warrant in order to monitor a single telephone. This was not a problem initially, but the development of mobile phones changed that. Drug dealers were no longer dependent on landline phones, and soon discovered they could evade observation by getting a new phone every week. It was completely unfeasible for investigators to get a new warrant every week in order to track a single person, so a "roving warrant" was developed in order to keep up with such drug dealers. Rather than issuing a warrant for a single phone, a judge would issue a "roving warrant" that allowed investigators to tap any of the named drug dealer's phones. The roving warrant is "warrantless" in the sense that no subsequent warrants are issued for new phones, but it is disingenuous to describe it that way since there is an original, more flexible warrant allowing investigators to track new phones. Rather than an illegal display of power, roving wiretaps were created as a sensible response to a critical problem.

As I said before, one can still disagree with the Patriot Act. Some may even disagree with my assertion that roving wiretaps are a sensible solution. The strategies in the Patriot Act vary; there will certainly be practices in the Patriot Act with more questionable legal precedents than the roving wiretap just as there will be other practices with even less contestable precedents. What is not disputable is that everything in the Patriot Act has legal precedent. Regrettably, this critical fact is widely overlooked.

"I would hope that if you really care about freedom you would allow people to talk."
Ashcroft interrupted the protesters chanting in the back of the auditorium with this line. Although he was successful in immediately silencing them, it proved impossible to keep them quiet for the duration of his speech. A few minutes later, one of the protesters yelled to the crowd, "I hope you realize that by listening to this guy you're making yourselves look stupid." I rank her comment as the most foolish one expressed that night. The protesters may have chanted "Hiroshima" as if Ashcroft were somehow responsible. The protesters may have boo'd when Ashcroft gave an explanation of where Congressional and Executive powers have overlapped historically. The protesters may have repetitively asked Ashcroft why he wasn't in jail, but at least these protesters were not openly advocating that that we ignore everything the man had to say. The sentiment she expressed is exactly the same as the sheep in George Orwell's Animal Farm. She places no importance on analyzing what her opponent has to say, but simply knows she hates Ashcroft and has learned the proper slogans and chants to yell at him.

I say the other protesters did not "openly" advocate what she said because I believe their shared behavior is because they share her sentiment. It is important to mention that the protesters were not the only liberals in attendance. There were other liberals sitting near me who were generally respectful. "Why are they still bitching about this guy, do they realize we won?" one of them said, expressing disdain for the protesters. If only more people had that attitude.

Obama's Special Olympic Hubris

2009-03-23T20:16:00.007-05:00

Most people are aware of Obama's controversial statement on Jay Leno at this point. For those unfamiliar, Obama described his embarrassingly poor bowling skills as "like Special Olympics or something." The joke was rude and inconsiderate and many people who have a close relative involved in the Special Olympics have been understandably offended, but this entry is not about the offense I took to Obama's joke. I have a pretty edgy sense of humor, and I have certainly made jokes more offensive than the one Obama made about the Special Olympics. Instead I see the controversy as an opportunity to clarify the misconception most Americans have about Special Olympics. The media generally focuses on Obama's offensive remark and his public relations strategy to recover from the gaff, but there is more that people could, and should, be learning from the controversy. Obama's remark highlights how unaware most people are about the Special Olympics, and should be used to highlight just how competitive the organization is.

Obama's joke relies on a crude stereotype of the average Special Olympic athlete. When people think of Special Olympics they generally only think of the most severely retarded, physically handicapped, or otherwise dysfunctional athletes. This stereotype does accurately reflect a portion of Special Olympic athletes, but ignores a large portion of athletes who are very physically capable. Crude stereotypes are frequently utilized for humor, and I personally have no problem with that. (Many will differ, and it's not a philosophy I go around preaching.) The Special Olympian stereotype is more than just a humorous device, it shapes the way people perceive Special Olympics. This attitude is the entire basis of the movie The Ringer, in which the main character enters himself into the Special Olympics. He expects to easily win, and would thus be a "ringer" in the competition. Most people, including our president, have the same idea about Special Olympics: It is more of a joke than a real athletic competition. If these people ever entered a Special Olympics competition they would find the reality of the situation is very different.

Special Olympics has an extensive classification system that varies for every sport. For example, when my brother's Special Olympic team enters a basketball tournament they first have to play a "classification" game, where they are observed by Special Olympic volunteers who analyze the team. Teams with similar abilities are matched against each other in a tier system. The problem with people's perception of Special Olympics is that they assume it is entirely like the lowest tier competitions. People like the protagonist in The Ringer would not find themselves in an easy competition, but would instead realize just how competitive the higher tiers are in Special Olympics. I like to imagine it would be quite embarrassing for such arrogant people to realize just how talented many Special Olympic athletes are.

If one was particularly sinister then one may decide to intentionally perform poorly during classification in order to be classified into a less competitive tier. This is really no different, since the person is still forced to admit that he or she cannot compete with upper-level Special Olympic athletes. Justice is still served as well, since Special Olympics has rules preventing such behavior. (Regrettably, some coaches and parents have encouraged their mentally retarded athletes to do just this in order to improve their chances of getting a gold medal.) When there is an observable difference in a team or athlete's behavior between classification and the competition it will be dealt with. The penalty varies between sports.

What this attitude reveals is hubris on the part of Obama and society. I find this arrogant attitude disturbing as well as confusing. I do not understand why we, as a society, celebrate low-IQ NBA stars, while belittling and mocking the achievement of low-IQ Special Olympic athletes. To clarify, these accomplished athletes are not rare. I coach half a dozen very talented Special Olympic swimmers, three of which practiced with my high school swim team. (One of them is my brother, which I am obligated to share out of pride.) One of them was so talented that he earned himself a spot on the B 4x50 Freestyle relay. The other Special Olympic swimmers on the high school team were only fast enough to occasionally keep up with another swimmer at a meet, but they never lagged behind so much that people had to stand around waiting for them to finish.

Now that I am in college and have discontinued my rigorous swimming schedule, some of the athletes I coach are faster than me. I am not ashamed—as most would assume—to have been beaten by a Special Olympic athlete. I was a plenty good swimmer in high school. I helped set a school record in the 4x50 medley relay and I got first place in the 100 Fly at districts. I realize what Obama and many other don't, that in Special Olympics there are some damn good athletes.

The intention of Obama's joke was to make him seem more accessible and aware of his limitations, so it is ironic that the joke actually demonstrated how unaware and arrogant he is. He belittles the Special Olympics as if he could be a serious competitor among Special Olympians. This is not true at all. Had I been interviewing Obama I would have stopped him and said, "No, your performance was not 'something like Special Olympics.' You would need to practice quite a bit before you would be able to bowl with the abilities of the average Special Olympic bowler." This does not just apply to bowling, by the way. My brother loves basketball and spends about 3 hours a day shooting baskets. If Obama was playing a game of Horse with my brother, I would bet on my brother and not our president. This is not just true of Obama, but almost everyone. I swam competitively for seven years, and a year after I quit my practice schedule I was being beaten by the Special Olympic swimmers I coached. Unless you are currently very competitive and maintaining a steady practice schedule for a sport, I guarantee you there are lots of Special Olympic athletes who are better than you. Even if you are at a very competitive level in your chosen sport, there's a good chance there are a few Special Olympic athletes better than you. To believe otherwise is hubris, and to act otherwise makes you a fool.

The UT Student Government Controversy, or What Can You Do With An English Degree?

2009-03-11T06:55:00.025-05:00

There has been quite a bit of controversy at UT about last week's Student Government election after an article ran by the Daily Texan revealed César Martinez Espinosa, then the Election Supervisory Board co-chairman, had emailed 21 members of a secretive organization called The Eyes of Texas to express his support for Presidential and Vice-Presidential candidates Liam O’Rourke and Shara Kim Ma. This upset some people who objected to César's email because he is required to remain neutral as a supervisor of the elections.

So this is what went down: Student Government President Keshav Rajagopalan first told the Daily Texan on March 5 that César's resignation was an "overreaction" because the email he sent was not actually a violation of election code. Apparently it would only be considered bias if he invoked his title of Election Supervisor as he campaigned for Liam and Shara, under the logic that César-the-chairman and César-the-student are two separate people. (It's true. They have two separate Wikipedia articles, just like Anakin Skywalker and Darth Vader.)

The big twist is that Keshav was also a member of The Eyes of Texas and was one of the 21 recipients of César's email on February 28. Keshav passed on the email to be checked for election-code violations on March 3, and it was cleared prior to his "overreaction" statement to the Daily Texan on March 5. Some are not content with César's resignation and feel that Keshav should resign as well. All this builds up to a climactic Student Government open mic forum on March 10. Zak Kinnaird showed up before the meeting in black robes telling people he would punish the traitors of his secret society over Gregorian chants playing out of a boombox. The editor of the Texas Travesty showed up in robes as well. All of the presidential candidates showed up along with candidates from other positions. And of course there were some highly eccentric, highly opinionated students present as well, who I assume were regulars. Despite the fact that the forum was a bit of a circus, there were a lot of people representing the "average UT student," but apparently that guy didn't brief them well because they disagreed on some issues. (Also, what kind of asshole gets multiple people to represent him at a meeting? One should be enough.) Facing this entire crowd sat UT Student Government President, Keshav Rajagopalan.

Keshav gave an opening speech explaining that he never read the email and was unaware of it until a copy was delivered to the Student Government office anonymously on March 3. This was when he passed on the email to be checked for election-code violations. He told us he became concerned because, even though the email had been exculpated, he felt that César's actions fell into an ethical grey area, and so he asked César to resign. The reason for his significant change in opinion of the resignation as an "overreaction" to an ethical obligation varies from a legitimate ethical epiphany, to cynical political maneuvering, or a revision of Wikipedia policy, according to who you ask. (Keshav, his critics, and me, respectively.) Keshav then described what sounded like recycled talking points about making Student Government more transparent and friendly to the average student. Then he opened up the mic for questions.

The questions became pretty intense, and it seemed to me that the controversy was just another excuse for some people to point out what they dislike about Student Government. Some people demanded that he share more information about The Eyes of Texas, saying that it was hypocritical for him to keep secrets for the organization while claiming to serve the student body of UT. Others questioned whether students should be given the responsibility of supervising the election at all. Some poignant criticism was leveled at the notion of transparency in Student Government, since Keshav never made information about César's email available and told the Daily Texan that he preferred the situation be handled without "broadcasting" the email to the student body. Keshav consistently responded to the last criticism by reiterating the story from his opening statement and describing what he has done in order to make Student Government more transparent. To be honest, none of this meant very much to me. I am of the opinion that Student Government is pretty much just a figurehead and doesn't really do anything of much significance. My motivation for coming to the meeting was for amusement.

My interest in the meeting changed as the questions continued, however, and I found myself compelled to approach the mic. Keshav was handling himself well, and seeing a politician—especially from Student Government—handle questions so well is never amusing. Hearing him respond to student questions like a broken record became obnoxious because there were some glaring problems with his story that no one was pursuing and I couldn't understand why. His claim that he knew nothing about the email until it was delivered to the Student Government office seemed like obvious bullshit to me.

I stepped up to the mic feeling bold and with full intention to turn the story around on this guy and make him look like a complete idiot, but of course once I got up to the mic I lost most of my sarcasm, left out the one-liners I had imagined, but still managed to pick apart his story pretty thoroughly. This is how I remember it going:

Jared: "I'm a bit curious about the timeline of when you received the email and when you turned it in."
Keshav: "Ok."
J: "Well, the Daily Texan reports—and the timestamp is shown in the article—that you received this email on February 28."
K: "Well, yes, but I never saw the email."
J: "Right. So how often do you think you miss an email?"
K: "Well I don't know, I get over 500 a day. I try to read what I can and respond, but I can't always."
J: "Sure, sure, I understand. I think we can all relate, right? People were complaining earlier about spam from some of the candidates, and I know everyone hates spam from random classmates looking for notes and homework. [There was mild laughter, I paused to look around and saw people nodding at this. UT students seriously hate those emails.] But this seems to be different to me, because I usually take the time to read what my friends send me. I don't know too much about you and César, but you appointed him so I assume you two are pretty good friends right?"
K: "Yes."
J: "So it just seems a bit more unusual to me that you would overlook an email from a friend, especially one that you also work with in Student Government."
K: "Yeah, well, like I said, I get a lot of email and sometimes I'm too busy. Like... I can't recall what I was doing this weekend when he sent that email, but I wasn't able to check it."
J: "Ok, but another thing that strikes me about this email is the subject line. I mean, even when I don't open an email I still see all the subjects in my inbox right? And the subject of César's email was, in all caps, 'IMPORTANT!' and then, 'Please help.' I know you don't read the contents of every email you receive, but I don't understand why you wouldn't open an email from a friend with such an urgent subject." [After this statement I hear some laughter from the crowd.]
K: "Yeah, I just never happened to see the email."
J: "So you never saw the email until the physical copy was delivered anonymously a few days later?"
K: "Right."
J: "That just seems strange to me. Personally I am the opposite. I would get email a lot sooner than actual mail."

This was when I planned on saying that his reliance on physical mail and befuddled handling of email reminded me more of my grandmother than a student at UT, but I didn't and instead finished with my questions and sat down. When I returned to my seat a few people told me that they thought I asked good questions, and a few more people told me the same thing after the forum was over. The forum continued for another hour with steadily increasing intensity, but that is of no concern to this article. Oh no, dear reader, this story is only for the sake of addressing a question every English major must answer every time an acquaintance discovers his or her major:

"What are you going to do with an English degree?"

This question haunts the English major community so thoroughly that it is sometimes the topic of classroom discussion. "What exactly are we going to do with our degrees? Discuss." Even English professors joke that there is no such thing as a professional organization of English majors because we are a diasporadic group. This dispersal is not a sign of what little can be done with an English degree, but rather a sign of how many different things can be done with one.

How exactly does this relate to the Student Government controversy at UT? Because the skills of an English major are in use even when most people do not realize it. Although I went to the forum only for amusement, my mind—which UT has tuned to scrutinize language and rhetoric—would only focus on the glaring holes in the story that Keshav kept repeating. I did not approach the mic with any antagonism towards Keshav or contempt for how he was doing his job as Student Government President. I did not approach the mic because I felt belittled as an average student or duped as a voter. I did not approach the mic to opine about an emotional issue or present a logical point. I was driven to the mic because of the shadowy timeline and unconvincing behavior in the story Keshav was sharing. I approached the mic as an English major approaching a rhetoric assignment. I spotted and scrutinized the weakness of the narrative, I emphasized and put them on display to the forum, I successfully supported my observations, and for a few moment I made the Student Government President uneasy. This is what English majors can do with their degrees, and we can do it anywhere, and no one is safe. Not even fellow English majors. We like engaging one another, English majors are the most dangerous game.

We are in your movie, mentioning the book was better. We are in your music, critiquing the lyrics. We are in your politics, pointing out your rubbish. We are in your conversation, making you feel stupid. We are in your law, pwning your rules. What can we do with an English degree? Whatever the fuck we want!

Credit where credit is due. The featured comic is from Circumlocution, a comic in the Daily Texan "devoted to life at the University of Texas at Austin, among other things." The description of the forum is my own personal account. Any other information about the Student Government controversy is from the Daily Texan. Also, please don't analyze all the mistakes in this entry so you can brutally outline them and cause me give up on being an English major in despair, even though I am pretty much asking for it.

The Pro-Israel Rally & Pro-Palestine Protest at UT

2009-01-23T12:45:00.020-06:00

The Texans for Israel student organization at UT organized a rally in support of Israel. About a week before the rally was scheduled, anti-Israel students organized to protest the rally. I was there showing support for Israel and I was very impressed by how well Texans for Israel handled the pressure, as well as disappointed at the behavior of the Anti-Israel protesters.

One thing that was made clear about the Pro-Israel rally is that it was not an Anti-Palestine rally. We were condemned by the protesters as Anti-Palestine, but this was not the case at all. Every person I talked to who showed up to support Israel said they felt bad for the innocent Palestinians enduring the hell in Gaza. Time and time again, the Pro-Israel speakers as well as people in the audience stressed that it is Hamas they are against, not Palestine.

"Free The Palestinians From Hamas." To me that seems like something everyone should support, regardless of how they feel about about Israel's actions. This was not the case, and I found out that many of the Anti-Israel protesters actually sympathize with, or even support Hamas. This is really the root of what disturbs me about these protesters. I feel terrible for those who have died in this conflict, but why are people so quick to blame Israel for every person who dies in Palestine? Why does no one protest how Hamas has used active schools as sites to build weapons? Hamas is so evil that they are willing to put their own children in harm's way to provide propoganda against Israel.

The Anti-Israel protesters were loud and chanted in a way that was reminiscent of the sheep in George Orwell's Animal Farm. The most obnoxious thing they would do was yell "LIAR!" at a speaker whenever they made a good point in their speech, no matter how ridiculous. At one point a speaker mentioned how Israel had a daily three hour ceasefire to allow humanitarian aid into Gaza, a statement which would never be contested in a reasonable discussion, but of course the protesters shouted, "LIAR!"

What I think spoke volumes about the difference in behavior between the two groups is that the protesters disrupted our prayers (one in Hebrew and one in English) by shouting "war criminals" and "baby killers" at us. Then the Anti-Israel protesters took the stage and asked for a moment of silence for those who had died in Palestine, and all but one or two of the Pro-Israel group were silent and respectful. (A few tried to be vocal about the fact that they had no respect for our prayers, but other Texans for Israel members quickly shushed them.) Texans for Israel had a message to send and they sent it well: We will not stoop down the same level as the Anti-Israel protesters. It made me very proud to be a part of a peace rally that was so well behaved despite the incredibly antagonizing attitude of the Anti-Israel protesters, some of whom were openly looking to start a fight.

Despite how intense it became at the rally, there was still laughter to be heard. One of the speakers used a quote from Barack Obama supporting Israel. This angered one of the socialist protesters who yelled, "You know, Barack Obama used to be Pro-Palestine before you assholes... changed his mind." There was laughter within the Pro-Israel crowd and then we returned our attention to the speaker.

Also, I saw a t-shirt that had a Texas and Israel flag on the back and said, "Texas isn't the only Lone Star State." I want that t-shirt. If it's not being sold anymore I'll probably just make one for myself.

Here's a short video I took at the rally before my camera battery died. (I forgot to charge it, stupid I know.)

Credit for the first picture in this post goes to my friend Eric Hofstetter.

PETA Declares Fable II 'Most Animal Friendly Game'

2009-01-13T14:11:00.009-06:00

Overall, I have no strong objection to calling Fable II the most animal friendly game from 2008. The game never struck me as particularly animal friendly, except that you grow up with a trusty dog companion (who apparently ages at the same rate as a person rather than a dog). That is irrelevant though, because your trusty canine companion has nothing to do with why PETA chose Fable II.

Instead, the website describes how Fable II has "a strong pro-vegetarian theme, eating a plant-based diet helps you rack up 'purity' points, whereas eating meat makes your character fat and evil. A fun and innovative game, it's also an effective tool that teaches gamers the real-life benefits of a vegetarian diet."

I can see how the ability to be a vegetarian in Fable II would appeal to PETA, but feeding your character is not a one-way ticket to a fat and evil character. What they said about purity points is true, and a heavy meat diet will contribute toward your character being evil, but the differences between a good and evil character are more like the archetypal presentations of good and evil in films and literature, e.g. Luke Skywalker and Darth Vader.

It is foolish to say the game has a "strong pro-vegetarian theme" because the selling-point of Fable II is that the player has freedom to do whatever he wants. The "strong" theme that PETA is describes is only there if the player pursues it. A writer for The Escapist describes how his character "ate meat pies by the handful, and killed the grocer who sold the celery." There is no real penalty for this behavior in Fable II, only a noticeable difference in your characters appearance and development. To provide some context, the wanted level and police officers in Grand Theft Auto IV more strongly punish players for running over random pedestrians, but that doesn't stop it from being a game where players zoom down the sidewalk for amusement.

Also overlooked by PETA are other activities in the game, such as killing rabbits, that do not make a character more evil. So eating meat can make a character more evil in Fable II, but not necessarily. Also, the evil meat-eaters are not the fat slobs that PETA describes them as (and sees meat-eaters the same way in real-life, whether or not we are). In fact, the game actually rewards players for going out and killing animals. So why was it that PETA called Fable II the most animal friendly game of 2008? Well it still has that dog...

About the Heisman

2008-12-20T09:47:00.003-06:00

This isn't really a legit post, I just thought I'd share an interesting quote about the Heisman Trophy that I saw:

"The most remarkable thing about the Heisman Trophy race, which Oklahoma quarterback Sam Bradford won last Saturday, is not that Florida quarterback Time Tebow recieved the most first-place votes yet finished third or that Bradford's marigin of victory over Texas quarterback Colt McCoy and Tebow was slimmer than an Olsen twin. It was that the Heisman fate of the three QB's was essentially decided six weeks ago in Lubbock, Texas, on a single play--a play that involved none of them.

Think about it. If Texas Tech wideout Michael Crabtree had not hauled in a 28-yd pass from Graham Harrell and tightroped into the end zone with one second lef,t giving the Red Raiders a 39-33 victory over Texas on Nov. 1, the Heisman voting would almost certainly been dramatically different. Texas would probably have emerged with a 33-32 victory (a game-winning 45 yard field goal would have been a long shot for Texas Tech), and considering the way they rolled over their final three regular-season opponents, the Longhorns would likely have completed a 12-0 regular season. That would have made McCoy the quarterback of the undefeated No. 1 team in the nation and the almost surefire Heisman winner.

That's not to say that Bradford, who threw 48 touchdown passes, was anything but a deserving recipient, or that Tebow, whose versatility and leadership are the main reasons the Gators will play in the BCS championship game on Jan. 8, wasn't worthy of a second Heisman. It merely shows the folly in trying to choose the "most outstanding" college football player in the nation, or ever the best quarterback, which is what the Heisman has become in the recent years. Winning the award takes individual and team achievement, and quite often a fortuitous combination of circumstances that even a trio of take-charge quarterbacks are powerless to control. One play can change everything, and sometimes the winner doesn't even have to be the one that makes it."

Obama & Lincoln

2008-12-05T05:05:00.002-06:00

Talking about how much Barack Obama is like Abraham Lincoln seems to be the cool thing to do lately, but I don't quite see it. I have to wonder if the people comparing Obama to our sixteenth president know anything about Lincoln's presidency, or instead picture a mythical figure ending American slavery with the power of hope.

Abraham Lincoln suspended civil liberties and wielded an unprecedented amount of power during his presidency. Lincoln declared a blockade on Southern ports three months before Congress had declared war, he spent without Congressional approval, and he suspended habeas corpus and imprisoned suspected Confederate sympathizers without trial. Lincoln was essentially a king, which is awesome by the way.

The fact is that Abraham Lincoln would not bat an eye at the Patriot Act, and the amount of executive power during the Bush administration pales in comparison to Lincoln's. In fact, Lincoln's practice of imprisoning suspected Confederate sympathizers without trial is essentially a form of McCarthyism.

Since McCarthyism is such a toxic word, it is probably necessary for me to specify that I do not mean to criticize Lincoln. Many of his decisions certainly fall into a grey area, but at the end of it all the Union was preserved and Congress regained power over the executive branch.

It seems to me that people love to compare Obama to Lincoln because people love lavishing laudations of the man, but they must grope for something to praise since Obama has been elected president before he really accomplished anything concrete. Comparing him to one of our greatest presidents seems to have filled this void. What disturbs me most is how much people praise him before he has even been sworn into office. Could we at least wait until he has been president for a few years before busting out the champagne and celebrating him as a president of Lincoln's caliber?

The Seinfeld/Microsoft Commercial

2008-09-07T12:37:00.010-05:00

So Microsoft released the first of their ambitious new campaign in "response" to Apple's "I'm a Mac" ad campaign. People are unusually furious about the ad. The general reason is that they think it just doesn't make any sense and dislike it as well for not actually responding to, or attacking the Mac ads. Uh-oh, it looks like Microsoft made the mistake of not trying to copy Apple by giving their fanboys a hearty pat on the back.

I personally thought the commercial was pretty funny. What strikes me as odd is how furious people are about the fact that the commercial is about nothing. They hired Seinfeld! What did people expect other than a commercial of weird things like talking about how a shoe size runs small?

The L.A. Times seems to not be content just to trash the ad for not being funny, but must also insinuate that the ad is both racist and belittling of poor Americans. Is it racist for a hispanic family to speak Spanish to each other? Is it racist because they're eating churros? Is it racist because they curiously watch two incredibly famous and rich men in a shoe store? No, apparently the L.A. Times thinks it is racist because the hispanic family represents the kind of people who have to shop at a discount shoe store because they're too poor. What the fuck?!

What about the family caused the L.A. Times to come to the conclusion that this family was impoverished? Middle-class Americans also notice celebrities in public and aren't ashamed to buy a churro at the mall. The L.A. Times assumed this family was poor either because they were hispanic or because they were speaking Spanish, or both. In their shameful attempt to invent a high ground for themselves the L.A. Times actually makes a pretty egregious comment.

The L.A. Times also links to one of their own articles about the half a million people who lost their jobs this year. That's right, Bill Gates and Seinfeld are so arrogant that they will shoot a 1.5 minute commercial about shopping at a discount shoe store without addressing the unemployment situation in the current economy. The L.A. Times did hear that the commercial was supposed to be about nothing right? A political issue would be perceived more as 'something' to most Americans.

I really couldn't care less about the fact that most people don't appreciate the humor in the commercial. There is a point to be made, which is that Microsoft certainly does need to find a more mainstream sense of humor than the one in this commercial if they intend to keep running the Seinfeld ads on TV.

Even though I thought this ad was pretty much hilarious it still doesn't come close to comparing to the Demetri Martin ads. The Demetri Martin Finds Clearification web series he made was funnier than most TV comedies I watched last year. (Yeah, it was miles ahead of the latest season of The Office.)

Chrome

2008-09-03T16:34:00.007-05:00

I downloaded Google Chrome and have been using it for a day now. Their cute little comic book explanation for the browser says that one problem is they can't test it on pages that require a password, which is painfully obvious because Facebook loads like shit on Chrome. First of all if I type in facebook.com and it takes me to an error page and suggests that the site is probably down. Actually Chrome just couldn't find the site unless I typed in www.facebook.com, so if you're one of those people who feels like everyone should type three w's and a period in front of every URL this is the browser for you!

Seriously though the browser was released yesterday and is in Beta. (With Google's reputation the Beta will last a decade.) The one thing I like about Chrome is how they changed the architecture so that each tab gets its own little bit of memory. Of course this costs a bit of extra memory with every tab you're running, but you don't have to worry about nasty memory leaks that plague Firefox. All innovation aside there is plenty of reason to be wary of Chrome.

Everyone immediately wonder what inspired Google to create there own web browser since Firefox is already fighting IE with Google's support. The reason is because Microsoft upped the ante by developing a feature for IE8 that allows the user to block all Google advertisements. Google certainly couldn't stand for this so they decided to step into the ring themselves against Microsoft. Google has certainly done some interesting stuff with Chrome, and whether it will eventually catch up with Firefox's market share is unclear, but one thing I feel certain about is that I do NOT trust a browser that was developed for the sake of advertising.

(On a side note, does anyone notice that the color scheme of the Chrome comics kinda matches my blog layout? Blue pastel is just cliche Web2.0 but it still amuses me.)

Back from Hiatus?

2008-09-03T07:52:00.007-05:00

So, I spontaneously decided to start blogging again today partially because my friend Jacquelyn is blogging about her year studying abroad in Paris, but mostly because my insomnia bested me and I gave up trying to sleep.

Looking back at my entries I realize it has been two years since I posted. Alot has changed since then, most notably I graduated high school and am starting my second year at The University of Texas. (Hook 'em.) I'm an English major, but don't expect anything impressive from this blog I'm busy enough as it is.

Anyways, this is all I plan on writing for now. I'm pretty sure I've got a blog entry about Chrome developing in my head so perhaps I'll post again later tonight.

Why I Love Weird Al

2006-10-11T17:31:00.000-05:00

So, Weird Al Yankovic's new album Straight Outta Lynwood is pretty good. "White & Nerdy" is a nerd classic, but I think that since it is a comedy song it doesn't really count as nerdcore. Chamillionaire and other people are apparently impressed with Weird Al's flow, which amuses me greatly.

"Don't Download This Song" is an original song, but is obviously a parody of 80's fundraiser songs. (Think "Do They Know It's Christmas?" or "We Are the World".) The song pretty hilarious, and so you should probably give it a listen. (But don't download it illegeally! You will die of the irony.)

Even though he wrote "Don't Download This Song" Weird Al has expressed an amount of disdain for p2p music downloading. Since he is a such a prominent comedy song artist, a lot of songs that aren't his are attributed to Weird Al. Many of them actually contain explicit content and Weird Al, who is proud to have clean lyrics, feels that this is bad for his artistic image.

Imagine that, and artist how is actually concerned with the effect of p2p downloading on his artistic reputation (and not the money he makes!) Not only does Weird Al have a more legitimate complaint about p2p downloading, he also isn't a bitter old hag about it. (Metallica comes to mind.)

Cause you start out stealing songs
Then you're robbing liquor stores
And selling Crack
And running over school kids with your car
-- Weird Al Yankovic, "Don't Download This Song"

He was pretty much Napoleon Dynamite as a kid.

Sam's Town

2006-10-10T21:50:00.001-05:00

So, The Killers album Sam's Town came out a week ago, and I've probably listened to it a hundred times since then. It's a really sweet album. The first single "When You Were Young" may have some Bruce Springsteen-esque lyrics, but people are way off when they characterize the album as a Bruce Springsteen imitation.

The synth-rock sound from Hot Fuss that people loved so much is gone now, except for the beginning of "Bones" which is very Hot Fuss sounding at the beginning and kind of Cure sounding afterward. (It's also, I'm pretty sure, my favorite song from the album.)

Also, the music video for "When You Were Young" is a pretty amazing piece of work, so you should watch it sometime. Tim Burton is in charge of the upcoming video for "Bones" so that's another one to look forward to. (As far as music videos go, The Killers tend to deliver too.)

So, I'm pretty sure I love every song from this album.

To heck with the sophomore curse.

I love The Killers.

My Dog is Bill Clinton

2006-09-24T18:43:00.000-05:00

So, Bill Clinton had a horrible interview with Fox News' Chris Wallace. Watching the interview, Tom Cruise immediately came to mind. (Hence the allusion in the title.)

Whether or not your a Clinton supporter, it is undeniable that he looks bad. He's overly defensive about Bin Laden and too aggressive about criticizing Wallace. He spent what I estimate was five minutes ranting in his defense and cutting off Wallace if he ever tried to get a word in. (Heaven forbid the interviewer should actually be allowed to say anything.) So what was Clinton ranting about? What strong defense did he present? Well, he told people to read a book.

No, he did not tell people about a book. He did not summarize it or present an argument from it. All Clinton did was urge people to read Against All Enemies: Inside America's War on Terror by former national security adviser Richard Clarke. By the end of the interview Clinton managed to mention Clarcke's name eleven times.

Regrettably, Clarcke's book doesn't do so much to validate the claims of "The Comeback Kid". Instead, the book makes Clinton seem quixotic.

Clinton loudly claimed that he came the closest to killing Bin Laden. Clarcke paints a very different picture. According to Clarcke, Clinton was unable to get Bin Laden killed because of feet dragging by the FBI and CIA. It sounds like it would be more of an accident if Bin Laden was nearly killed during the Clinton administration, rather than the triumphant accomplishment of a strong president.

Clarcke also argues that Clinton was weak on terror due to strong Republican opposition. He writes, "Weakened by continual political attack, [Clinton] could not get the CIA, the Pentagon, and FBI to act sufficiently to deal with the threat." This claim also is not harmonious with the image of a strong presidential move against Bin Laden that Clinton wants. (Considering the amount of political opposition the Bush administration has faced waging the War on Terror, I think it is ridiculous to think that there was a strong Republican presence keeping the boot on Clinton's neck.)

This is, after all, a pro-Clinton book, and that is why it weakens Clinton the most. It is someone portraying him in a favorable light, yet still managing to undermine Clinton's revisions to his history.

9/11

2006-09-11T15:31:00.000-05:00

It seems like something should be written about 9/11, but I don't really feel like I can do it much justice. There are certainly a lot of questions to be asked five years later. Should we have gone to war? (Obviously, anyone who thinks otherwise is a fool.) Was Iraq the right first step in the War on Terror? (I don't think so.) Are we much now than we were then? (I think so.)

I'm not entirely certain about my answers to these questions except the first. When a nation is attacked like we were, it must respond. An attack on our own soil, a massacre of our own citizens. We cannot just move on with our lives without a response to those who did this to us.

My school actually acknowledged the importance of 9/11 this year, unlike last year. Today our usual moment of silence was in remembrance of the attacks.

Manpower!!

2006-09-06T17:08:00.000-05:00

Normally I dislike swim team politics. It's often just gossip, and the drama is predictably petty and not worth the time writing about it. But not this morning.

Here is how is started. This morning, after our 400 push-ups, (I only wish I was exaggerating) we voted on t-shirts and meet suits instead of swimming. The boys and girls teams split and we were given some voting forms that featured cliche swimming t-shirt slogans and a few lines where we could suggest our own ideas. The idea was that we'd pick two we really liked, and then decide on one. Then the boys and girls teams would get together and reach an agreement on what the t-shirt should be. Then, chaos ensued after a simple conversation.

One last important fact: the boys teams is twices the size of the girls.

Someone jokingly suggested that we put Manpower, a joke from last year, on the t-shirt. Someone else realized that the guys team was twice as big as the girls, and that if we voted as a bloc, we stood a good chance of getting Manpower on the t-shirt.

This got us very excited. A pencil was passed around and everyone eagerly voted for Manpower. We sent a diplomat over to the girls team to deliver the documents.

Rebecca Conger, a captain on the girls team, quickly returned looking very displeased. Rather than addressing her grievance directly, she decided to criticize us for not reading the directions. "You're supposed to vote for two phrases," she said, giving me the papers in disgust. I took a moment to read the directions and gave my response. "Actually, it says to vote for 'up to two' phrases, which means we can just vote for one if we so choose." My response, of course, brought heckles and pleasure from the guys. "I wrote the directions!" she told me, becoming more irritated. "Well then, we all vote for Manpower twice." This didn't do much to improve her mood. Rebecca told us that, as a girls team captain, she had veto power over any suggestion and then stormed back to the girls team.

Coach Quindt seemed to be amused by the whole thing, Coach Montague told us we were being immature and that we needed to take this seriously. Of course, we were prepared for this. We unanimously declared that we would refuse to buy t-shirts unless our vote was respected, and that the girls could buy the shirts themselves, at a much higher price since they wouldn't get the bulk discount.

Rebecca came back later, and asked for a "reasonable" guy who would be willing to "compromise" to talk with. Nick, the antithesis of what she was hoping for, was elected for this position by a group chant, nixing Rebecca's plan. I suggested that we get to put Manpower on one side of the shirt, and that the girls could put whatever they wanted on the other side. Joy Turner decided to ask Cris Ray, who she expected to find this behavior immature, what he thought. Cris wholeheartedly supported the shirt-splitting idea, saying the girls could have the front and we could have the back. (I told him we should have the front, and he told me I was too demanding.)

It seemed we were going to get our way, and force the girls to wear a shirt saying Manpower to swim meets. I overheard one frustrated girl tell some of the others, "look, they're gonna get Manpower either way."

So, did we finally get our way? Can you hope to see a girl swimmer wearing a shirt to school one day that says Manpower? Regrettably, it is not so.

Just when it seemed like the girls may have schismed and we would've had our way. Somebody proposed to the coaches that we have girls team shirts and guys team shirts. The coaches agreed. So now, both shirts will have the same design on the back, but the boys shirt will say Manpower on the front and the girls team shirt will say Save Water, Shower Together.

UT Football

2006-08-29T18:10:00.001-05:00

Alright, so, it may be a bit late to gloat about UT's triumph in the 2005 Rose Bowl, which was easily one of the best football games of all time. Lucky for you, this article will not be about the majesty of Vince Young or his performance in the Rosebowl.

Instead, this is about a game that people, exlcluding Texas Aggies, have forgotten about. Backtrack a bit to the UT-A&M rivalry game. It was a tense game, with A&M actually taking the lead for a moment, but of course, UT still finished strong, beating the Aggies 40-29.

Of course, the final score is insignificant, if A&M actually let UT win, so we should hear out my teacher's argument before passing judgement. She applied economics (Which is "not a subject" and "just a bunch of horse sh-- like psychology" according to Andrew Toniolo.) and stated that A&M had an incentive to throw the game. UT made $16 million that they shared with the Big 12 when they won the Rose Bowl. According to my teacher, this accounts for the dramatic shift from A&M's "devastating" performance in the first half of the game to the dominating performance of UT.

So, does the theory hold out? No. Unless there was a sudden tragedy, UT was guaranteed to go to a BCS bowl and get $16 million to share with the Big 12. So A&M would have to monetary incentive to worry about whether UT would go to the Rose Bowl or not, because the payout would have been the same for them if they made it to another BCS bowl. (Props to my sister for this information. <3) style="font-weight: bold;">can not, in any way talk a college senior into throwing a rivalry game. It's simply not possible.

The dominating performance in the second half of the game was not unusual as my teacher suspects it is. The 2005 UT football often would come back with a sudden, overpowering performance in the second half of the game.

So, my AP Economics teacher is just a silly aggie, trying to create a moral victory for herself out of last years UT-A&M football game.

"Only an Aggie would think that throwing a game is something to be proud of."
-- my sis

Wikipedia Sells Out... Again

2006-08-23T20:32:00.000-05:00

So, Jimmy Wales told CNET that the German Wikipedia is going to experiment with a plan to prevent the many problems that supposedly plague the Wikipedias.

Now, the Germans propose, an edit to an article must be accepted by a "trusted" member of the de Wikipedia community before the article is actually updated. This is exactly the opposite of what wiki is about, in addition to being a ridiculously stupid idea.

The plan is completely unwiki because it proposes a layer in Wikipedian bureaucracy that stifles the one thing that is most important to Wikipedia: The freedom to edit an article and join in discussion. What if the "trusted" user has some sort of interest or bias about the article topic, and rejects the edit? It will probably just be lost forever. The only other option is a system of appeals or second opinion demands, which would just be too chaotic.

Another source of chaos would be heavily edited articles. A trusted user would need to monitor an article continuously and accept edits as they come along, otherwise, edits would quickly build up. What is the policy if two major edits are proposed to an article that can't possible compliment each other?

Wikipedia is supposed to be a self-correctiong open-source project, not a site of monitored and filtered submissions. The fact that this new system is even be experimented with on the de Wikipedia is nauseating. Why didn't Wales and Wikimedia learn from the Enciclopedia Libre fork? I personally think this new program just as offensive, if not more, than supporting a Wikipedia with advertisements.

To obey Godwin's Law, I'm now gonna go ahead and say that the new de Wikipedia proposal is more in line with Nazi Germany than it is with actual wiki philosophy.

No Pencil Necessary

2006-08-23T19:17:00.000-05:00

So, I went an entire day at school today without having to use a pencil. I figure I'll share with you a summary of this phenomenon.

Swimming - I think this is self-explanatory.

AP European History - We read a packet, but no writing was required.

GT English - Our teacher basically talked to us the whole time about how bad the things are that pop culture promotes.

AcDec - No writing, just reviewing the gigantic amount of facts we had to read and memorize the previous night.

AP Economics - Horribly boring. The teacher just put information on the overhead and droned at us about going to college.

Pre-AP Pre-Calculus - No work, instead we did a little matching game to review some Algebra II concepts.

That's it, that is how I had an entire day of school without needing a pencil.

Now Eco-Friendly!

2006-08-09T09:59:00.000-05:00

It seems like the cool new thing for a website to do is declare itself eco-friendly. Visit Google Maps with our eco-friendly maps! How wonderful and considerate of the environment, you don't print your maps out on paper. Of course, everyone who uses your site does, but I guess that's not something you have to take into account. (Those rogue map printers, their like the same people who use TiVo to skip commercials.)

So now, I'm coming out with my new, sweet, eco-friendly blog. I can one up Google on this issue, because I can say with certainty that nobody has printed out any of my blog entries, making it even more eco-friendly than Google Maps!

Let's not forgot The Office so quickly now. I got the first season DVD the other day. (It only contains six episodes, but they are still six precious episodes.) My mom thinks Jim, the protagonist of the show if there is one, reminds her of my friend Cris Ray, which is amusing. By now, I've gotten The Office theme song as my ringtone. It's good, now even if it's someoneI hate, I pick up happy, because I just heard the theme song from The Office.

More fiddling

2006-08-07T15:43:00.000-05:00

So, I just realized that in IE my blog entries were centered, wtf man! I guess when you don't verify the alignment in your html tag the Firefox default is left aligned and the IE default is centered. So I fixed that. IE is just plain retarded, and doesn't have tabbed browsing. (I think I heard 7.0 does now or something, but I seriously don't know anything about IE anymore.)

If I lost you in all that html crap, don't worry, most of you people only happen to see html when you copy and paste a script someone else like me has written for you into your myspace or your xanga, you little leech. (I've proudly been writing html since I got a Geocities site back in fifth grade, oh, Geocities, I already feel like I'm getting old...) Anyways, what you really need to get out of this entry is that you should download Firefox, now. It's pretty much the best web browser ever made, the browser of the gods you might say, the 1337 gods (and not those Mac using devils).

If you're reading my blog using IE and anything else looks funky, just tell me. If you're a Mac user and you have a problem, that's the price you pay for using a Mac!

Name Explanation

2006-08-07T10:12:00.000-05:00

I spent a few minutes fiddling with my blog before getting to my real chores today. Now there is a recent entries section on the sidebar! Along with the archives section, it will assist you in navigating the 3 tricky entries of mine so far.

I also figured that some explaining was in order for how I got the name for my blog. All These Moments is a reference to all the moments of my life you'll get to read about in my blog, as well as being a play from a line in a great quote from Blade Runner. (My favorite movie.)

I've seen things you people wouldn't believe. Attack ships on fire off the shoulder of Orion. I watched C-beams glitter in the dark near the Tannhauser gate. All those moments will be lost in time, like tears in rain. Time to die.

These were the last words of an android who knew his lifespan was only two years. (I've been around for 18, so don't get any suspicions.)

The Office: Best Show Ever

2006-08-06T22:48:00.000-05:00

I saw a bunch of the British episodes about a year ago during a BBC marathon, but my first exposure to the American Office was at my friend's house 2 weeks ago when, and I was instantly in love. The Office is pretty much the funniest show to emerge in a long time. It's definitely up there with Seinfeld and Futurama.

The BBC version was definitely better at being non-stop awkward (something both shows are), but I prefer the American version more because I like the characters more.

Everyman Jim and the lovely Pam. (Who I totally have a crush on.)

A New Blog

2006-08-05T22:43:00.000-05:00

So, this is my new blog, and this is my first entry, I feel like it should somehow be momentous, but it probably won't be. I've already spent quite a bit of time making this spiffy looking layout, so I don't have much energy to invest in writing a blog entry.

I figure I should tell you what to expect from my blog: not much. I'll occasionally share with ou interesting observations I've made. More often you will read some of my attempts at wit. You will also get to see some of my 1337 paintz skillz. (Crummy images I've made in MS Paint for those who are lost.)

Anyways, here are some interesting headlines:

The Bold Outlines of a Plot
Adapted as a Comic Book, The 9/11 Commission Report Hits Home Anew

Surgeons fought for hours to save Castro's life
Castro just won't die!