Christopher Lydon interviews David Rees of "Get Your War On."#

David Rees's public career began as just the opposite of trying to be funny. It was a late-at-night flight from his idle amateur cartooning. "I kinda made a decision," he said. "Well, I'll try to make a comic about how I actually feel for once." The ruins of the World Trade Center were barely cool. The war on Afghanistan had been announced. David Rees was struck by the want of public skepticism about a war on terror, the silence about the human cost on the ground. And so "Get Your War On" was born, with an office jock observing into the phone: "Yes! Operation: Enduring Our Freedom To Bomb The Living Fuck Out Of You is in the house!!!"

The language of the early strip still shocks with undeniable images and vernacular simplicity--what oft was thought but ne'er expressed out loud. Except by the clip-art man at his desk: "You know what I love? I love how we're dropping food aid packages into a country that's one big fucking minefield! That's good!" And his pal on the phone: "Well, it turns the relief effort into a fun game for the Afghan people. A game called "See if you have any fucking arms left to eat the food we dropped after you step on a landmine trying to retrieve it."

My favourite part was when Chris asked David if the site could last forever, and Davis said:

My deal with the White House is that if President Bush fires Donald Rumsfield, I'll stop writing "Get Your War On!" But we haven't yet entered the final stages of negotiation.

David Rees' other comic made me laugh a lot. I don't know why though. My New Fighting Technique is Unstoppable

The Binary Circumstance quotes from Ayn Rand's Philosophy: Who Needs It?#

Man must obtain his knowledge and choose his actions by a process of thinking, which nature will not foce him to perform. Man has the power to act as his own destroyer--and that is the way he has acted through most of his history...

Edmund Rockwell writes about Why Government Must Be Abolished.#

For traditional, forcible government to accomplish anything, it first must tax. This requires stealing, at gunpoint, money (property) from everyone under its rule — even the people who don't want done what the government is going to do. This is theft. There is no more fitting term for it. Government gets away with this, first because it has more guns than any individual it's taxing; and second because the population has usually been convinced, lately through years of government schooling, that such stealing is necessary for civilization.

Hand-wringing philosophers are invited to write me to disagree, but I hold that it's self-evident that there is no good act that can be performed that requires first the commission of an evil act. As an example, "killing the few to save the many" has never in human history found a practical application outside war, which always involves governments imposing their wishes on each other. There is no natural emergency or shortage of resources that requires first committing evil in order to bring about a good. Bringing about a good never allows beginning with an evil.

Dowingba comments on a quote in an interview with Steve Jobs, who thinks that record companies should stop making advances to artists who aren't yet popular.#

Jobs needs to realize that not everyone is quite as rich as he is. Most unsigned, obscure artists can't quite afford to record an album, go on tour, promote, distribute, all without an advance. That costs millions of dollars. If the record companies were to take Steve's advice, the recording sector in general would drop back 30 years. High-quality records would sound like stuff I record on my computer using a $15 mic. It's insanity.

And that is why I hope they take Steve's advice.

Dowingba is not bitter about women at all.#

One time I was at a friend's place and some girl dropped by for some reason. She was one of those brain-dead Malibu-type girls who would just die if they didn't have the latest designer shoes and pink purses and the new designer haircut with coloured highlights and whose favourite movies no doubt include Clueless and Legally Blonde 2. After she left my friend exclaimed, "Wow, she's hot, eh?" I told him, quite honestly, that I didn't find her very attractive at all, and left it at that.

[...]

She'll amount to nothing in life because, you know, she's such an ignorant retard. After being finally kicked out of her house, she'll marry the first drunken, unkempt necropheliac she lays eyes on because he has a shiny car. After her complete and utter idiocy drives the man to border-line murderous rage, she decides to leave him (because obviously he's gay), and taking her life savings of $100, thumbs her way to Toronto. After being spit out the bowels of the porn industry, she makes her living selling her body to disease-ridden old men.

Scary Duck replies to some spam and fact checks their ass.#

Ingrid has Christmas planned on exactly... amazing.#

Nathan finishes his discussion about the controversy surrounding homosexuality and morality.#

But I've said pretty much everything I want to say about that topic.

[...]

Because what does it matter if I approve of homosexuality or not? What does it matter what I think, if you are so convinced it is the right way for you (or your friends) to live?

The only two reasons I can think of that could explain the ire that I have raised in others is if:

a) deep down inside, they think I'm right and don't want to admit it to themselves (i.e., kill the messenger), or
b) they think I'm influential enough to block their acceptance into society and their receiving the right to marry legally.

If their arguments are so compelling (and I have to admit, I don't find them so, since it seems to me they lack any hard evidence or even any logic other than forms of moral equivalence and "I really think so"), then let the ideas battle in the marketplace of ideas. I have confidence that if my understanding of morality and homosexuality is correct, my idea will win out. If not, it will die away.

You won't kill the idea by trying to shut me up, by trying to shame me, by acting offended, or by judicial fiat.

Ms. Lauren had an interesting response:

I have to qualify my statements by saying that I disagree with almost everything, or everything, said in this post. Morality cannot be defined by one group's moral absolutes.

If there is a movement to guarantee "moral" behavior in homosexual relationships, it is exactly the marriage movement the author criticizes that seeks to do so. I believe this is the weakness within the entire post, a general misunderstanding of who aims for these "moral" goals and whose "moral" code is defining the argument.

Sean Bonner writes up some very depressing things about his life...#

7 - When I was in 3rd grade my grandmother convinced me to give her my dog so she could go live with her friend who's husband had just died and was very lonely, promising I could go visit her when ever I wanted. Several excuses as to why I couldn't go see her later, my school went on a field trip to the local SPCA, where to my suprise I found my dog. The school kids went back to school and I stayed there crying until my mom could come pick me up, just me, not my dog. Turns out that was the plan, they had assumed I would just forget about the dog and didn't figure in the SPCA fieldtrip. I called every week to see if she was still there until finally they told me no one had adopted her and she'd been put to sleep. Ironically enough that's when I wish I'd been lied to. How hard would it have been to tell a crying 3rd grader that his dog was adoped by a loving family with kids and a yard and would live happily ever after? Many years later I'd meet a friend of a friend who worked there and said after the dogs and cats were given lethal injections they were incinerated, however this happened very quickly and most of the animals were still alive when they threw them into the fire.

Tyler Cowen links to The New Scientist on how Beautiful Women are to Rational Thought what Oil is to Water.#

Male students, when shown pictures of pretty women, were more likely to opt for short-term economic gain than wait for a better reward in the future.

Both male and female students at McMaster University were shown pictures of the opposite sex of varying attractiveness taken from the website 'Hot or Not'. The 209 students were then offered the chance to win a reward. They could either accept a cheque for between $15 and $35 tomorrow or one for $50-$75 at a variable point in the future.

Wilson and Daly found that male students shown the pictures of averagely attractive women showed exponential discounting of the future value of the reward. This indicated that they had made a rational decision. When male students were shown pictures of pretty women, they discounted the future value of the reward in an "irrational" way - they would opt for the smaller amount of money available the next day rather than wait for a much bigger reward.

Women, by contrast, made equally rational decisions whether they had been shown pictures of handsome men or those of average attractiveness.

Tyler's reply is amazing: "the next time I do something crazy, I will blame it on having a beautiful wife."

Sarcasmo has some fantastic dreams...#

I dreamt about a visit with an old friend of Pop Culture Boy's that lead to a resumed acquaintance with an old friend of mine. PCB and I stayed in a strange hotel with a long narrow canopied bed with small TV monitors set around the canopy rail. Our pet white owl slept in a small, custom made bowl of water at our feet. When the owl got upset, it split itself in two: becoming a young blonde boy and young blonde girl, both dressed all in white. The young girls ran off and we chase her through the hotel. When we catch and calm her we are forced to tell everyone that she is the daughter of a friend of a friend. Everyone accepted our story and adored the little girl.

The dream later lead to romantic betrayal, and a trip to a dance club only accessible by jumping from rooftop to rooftop, and eventually swinging down on a long chain. I failed the chain test.

Get your dream books out folks. I've got no idea what this means.

Brendan posts a guide to blogging to keep you in check.#

1) Avoid self-indulgence. This is a matter of degree because a blog is by its' nature self-indulgent. The reader doesn't want to hear too much about the author until the reader has been won over by the content. Once I've visited a site a few times and found it enlightening or entertaining, then I become curious about the person writing it. On some sites the author talks about her/himself all the time. This can be mildly amusing but it quickly grates. We need more to read than last night's party or a person's man/woman problems. There is a niche site, the college-kid site, that exists for the sole purpose of socializing and gabbing. That's fine, but such sites probably won't get a lot of traffic from people outside the author's peer group, unless the author happen to be exceptionally interesting. Here's the test--if your life would get big ratings as a reality show, then by all means talk a lot about yourself. Otherwise, use some discretion and limit the self-references.

Later Brendan comments on my hometown. Thanks buddy.

Eric S. Raymond writes about the Internet Summit in Geneva and a controlled Internet.#

The organizers of the Internet Summit in Geneva have had Dr. Paul Twomey, the president of ICANN (the organization that's chartered to administer the international domain-name system), ejected by security guards after he'd flown twenty hours to participate in the meeting.

I was not especially surprised. The organizers of the Geneva summit seem to be very much the same scum of the planet that one normally finds running these U.N. events — third-string diplomatic timeservers, addle-brained NGO moonbats, a scattering of celebrity Eurotrash, and a legion of gray apparatchiks from authoritarian Third World pestholes. It didn't astonish me that they'd use force to keep out anyone who might interfere with their plans for a government-friendly, politically-correct, censored, and very thoroughly controlled Internet.

The Black Saint watches his final episode of The Simple Life.#

I will add, though, that Hilton and Richie's relationship recalls every classic sitcom pairing. Hilton is Lucy and Richie is Ethel, the less attractive, slightly stupid best friend who gets pulled into her companion's harebrained schemes. There's also a bit of Mary and Rhoda, as Hilton is the WASP and Richie is the ethnic -- and thus a little more wacky and scattered. Previews for next week reveal Richie asking young men to kiss each other in exchange for her kissing them (unfortunatley, this results in the young men breaking state law and being lynched). She also scribbles the name of something on her breasts. That's just too ghetto for me.

Douglas Rushkoff writes about his meme of Buzzword "Open Source Judaism" that is spreading...#

"Judaism has reinvented itself in each of its most creative periods. The question is, do we want to be part of new possibilities, or do we want to be among those who lament an idealized past that never existed. ... Two thousand years ago, the early rabbis envisioned a new Jewish agenda - they transformed Judaism from a Temple-based religion to a synagogue-centered community; from sacrificial offerings at the altar to meals shared around the simple home table ... from a vicarious priesthood to a teaching mentorship model; from a land-centered religion to a portable faith. ... It was the Jewish imagination and ability to think outside the box, to have the chutzpah to reinvent Judaism, that saved Jewish civilization, the Jewish faith, and the Jewish people."

Brian Wohlgemuth writes that Wesley Clark is a Eurotrash Wannabe.#

The comment in question:

CLARK: Well, if I were president right now, I would be doing things that George Bush can't do right now, because he's already compromised those international bridges. I would go to Europe and I would build a new Atlantic charter. I would say to the Europeans, you know, we've had our differences over the years, but we need you. The real foundation for peace and stability in the world is the transatlantic alliance. And I would say to the Europeans, I pledge to you as the American president that we'll consult with you first. You get the right of first refusal on the security concerns that we have. We'll bring you in.

Brian:

General Clark, I can safely say that I will never vote for you. To put our nation's security at risk because you want to appease the Euro-Weenies (and I defintely don't mean Europe as a whole, just the psychotic EU-building politicate) is unbelieveable. For a former commander of American forces in Europe, and a Commander in NATO; your inability to put the needs of your country ahead of the desire to "make nice" with Monsieur Chirac and the rest of the EU makes you completely incapable to lead a pack of Boy Scouts, let alone the presidency of this country.

Jeff Trigg replies to Bill Dennis and I about running in an election that you know you cannot win.#

With no fault to Bill or Jay, there is another issue they just aren't aware of. If I were the only competition to LaHood and I got 5% of the vote this would be a huge win for Libertarians. There are 11 counties (I'd have to double check) contained wholly within the 18th Congressional District. Getting 5% would give us established party status in all of those counties. This would allow us to run candidates for county clerk and county board and township supervisor and a host of other "lower" offices that we can win but can't run for now without steep requirements. Our system requires us to run for offices we can't win yet, so we can run for partisan offices where we can win. Potential candidates will come out of the woodwork when a party has ballot access that otherwise wouldn't want to run because it's to hard for them to get on the ballot when we aren't considered an established party.

I understand where Bill and Jay are coming from, but they don't understand how the system works. In Illinois, our election system is really screwed up for opposition candidates. The "if you can't win, don't run" sentiment is understandable, but they are using a much different definition of winning than we do. They don't understand the rules of the game.

Oliver Kamm writes about steel tariffs and the World Trade Organization.#

The lifting of the steel tariffs is of course excellent news. Whatever justification the Bush administration uses for the policy and its reversal, the tariffs were economically destructive and politically indefensible. An economic lesson — that of David Ricardo - nearly two centuries old ought not to need restating, but almost invariably does: trade protectionism damages countries that practise it, never mind those against whom it's directed. It persists mainly because the benefits of any particular measure of protection are concentrated and visible, while the costs are diffuse. It's bad economics, because it imposes a regressive tax on the consumer to the benefit of a sectional interest, and it's bad politics because it rewards loud and well-organised interest groups that are adept at lobbying.

[...]

The real victor in the steel dispute has been the World Trade Organisation, a supranational body that — unlike the UN — does an important job well. Anti-globalisation protestors on the nativist Right, such as Pat Buchanan, and the reactionary Left, such as Ralph Nader, speak of the WTO in remarkably similar language and indeed explicitly recognise each other as allies in a common struggle. Their premise is that, in the words of anti-globalisation guru Walden Bello (a man with no qualifications in economics of any kind), the WTO is:

a charter for corporate rule that enshrine[s] the principle of corporate trade above equity, justice, environment, and almost everything else.

Bello's characterisation is ignorant and irresponsible. The WTO has no jurisdiction over a country's environmental, economic or social policies. A member state can follow any such policies it wishes. The only thing it may not do is to discriminate between foreign and domestic producers.

Alex Tabarrok gives advice to a liberal-arts major.#

First, stop whining. You had a choice of poetry or business and you chose poetry. If your love for the subject is not enough to make up for the loss in income then go back to school. Two, stop blaming "an economic system" that glorifies science etc. and notice that these jobs pay highly because the skills they require are rare and people are willing to pay for the product of these jobs. If you produce something that people want you will be paid highly also but don't expect other people to pay so that you can fulfill your dreams of writing poetry that no one wants to read. Third, what do you mean by it's difficult to find work for the philosopher, writer, dancer, poet or sculptor in "Western society." Do you know of any society at any time or place that has offered more for the arts? A retail clerk who does sculpture on the side has a far higher income than does your typical sculptor working in India. Try visiting most of the rest of the world - where science and business are not glorified - if you want to truly understand "drudgery."

Jim Henley links to Rebecca who writes about the Dancing Army of Popes.#

The Popes won't attack. Not if they don't have to. Not until the day comes when people lose sight of basic neighborly love and kindness. But when they do, look out. That dancing Pope army is going to boil out of its homeland and pour over the surface world. They'll wash over the petty politicians and the stars, the preachers and the demagogues, and with their sequins and their Popetanks the tidal force of that army will can-can the old regime away.

You can't understand until you've seen it. No one could. You can't really know what we're facing until you've gone down there yourself and seen the Pope army dancing.

What can we expect? Well, I've taken a few notes.

People who use condoms should be careful. The Pope army doesn't approve of condoms. They'll pass by like a white tide, and if they see someone using a condom, YOINK, they'll just yank it right off.

David Giacalone writes about Haiku and being a lawyer.#

Like the legal profession, haiku poetry doesn't get much respect in America. I'm definitely not the guy to defend lawyers, but (as you can see from my new masthead) I plan to be a Haiku Advocate. [...]

Most of us only know haiku as childish poems with three lines and strict 5-7-5 syllable format -- or, as off-color or silly doggerel. I was fortunate to re-discover haiku as a true poetry genre and a quality artistic experience, at a time when my health limited both my attention span and my stamina. Small doses of the tiny poems inspired me as a reader, and kindled a belief that even I could learn to "do something creative," at a time when becoming a capable painter or novelist were far beyond my capabilities.

Michael Williams writes about the difference between a head of state and a head of government.#

In America, the President is both the chief of state and the head of government, but in many countries the two offices are divided. In modern times, the main function of the head of state is to serve as a individual human representative for the nation as a whole, and the office is often non-political. Heads of government are administrators that wield government power and handle the management of the country. When most Americans think of things our President does as part of his job, we think of the duties of a head of government. In many countries the actual head of state has little real power, unless he is also the head of government.

In the UK, the head of state is the King or Queen, and the head of government is the Prime Minister. Technically, the Prime Minister is appointed by the monarch to administrate the country, but the monarch always appoints the head of the party who wins the most votes in the Parliamentary election. I'm told that this isn't a requirement, but no one really knows what would happen if the Queen decided to ignore an election and appoint someone of her own choosing.

Ryan Skadberg asks an important theological question,#

Last night while watching Catch Me If You Can (Widescreen Edition) , I was reminiscing about boyhood dreams. More specifically about how movies when we were kids affected those dreams. I remembered things like watching The Karate Kid and wanting to learn karate or watching Gleaming the Cube and wanting to learn how to skateboard and other such flash in the pan ideas. These ideas never lasted more than a few days or maybe a couple of weeks, but each time a new movie started, so did a new dream. Over time, there was some money spent on this fleeting dreams, one karate lesson, a skateboard bought in Florida, and probably lots of other money spent in small doses in things that were tossed to the side as quickly as they became an interest.

Well, as I was watching this movie, I thought, what would have happened had THIS movie come out while I was a kid?

Dean Esmay writes about Hilary Clinton.#

The main thing that annoyed me, when she was First Lady, was that she wanted both to be an overt power player, but also wanted the ability to wilt back into the traditions of First Ladyhood whenever somebody criticized her. You don't get a husband who advertises your couplehood as "two for the price of one," get put in charge of major commissions that are normally reserved for political professionals, and then expect not to be treated like a normal politician. The whole, "I'm just a giiiiirlll, leave me alone!" mentality has never played well with me, and it's doubly odious when a woman wants both all the traditional protections and deferences, and all the perks of playing in the big leagues. It would be like my wife demanding to be allowed to play in the National Football League, but also demandeding to be allowed to file assault charges if anyone actually tackled her.

The inherent sexism of people who let her get away with this, who came to her defense by saying she was First Lady, just made it all the more caustic. Even now, I'm still astounded by people who act as if this woman deserves to be treated more gently than any other member of the Senate. It's stunning what lows that "feminism" has sunk to if the Senator from New York must be treated nicely simply because she's a giiiiiirrrlll!!. Elizabeth Cady Stanton and Susan B. Anthony would have been appalled.

Seb links to Andy Borrows who writes about a stagnating life...#

I had grown used to living in a rut. It may not have been perfect, but after a while you don't notice the imperfections; it's just not quite uncomfortable enough to warrant changing anything. Hankering after things that are out of reach only makes you dissatisfied, so after a while you build a high wall so that you can't see them any more and that way you don't get so dissatisfied. You don't notice the rut, because everyone living your side of the wall has their own rut. Life goes on, day follows day and we all get a little older, a little more sure that our reality only extends as far as that wall, but since we do those things together, no-one really notices. And so the wall gets a little higher, a little thicker.

But then along comes blogging and it starts knocking holes in that wall, through which you can glimpse exquisitely tantalising thumbnails of the view on the other side; it creates links, threads that pass through those holes and start to exert a tug that's almost physical. People, places, ideas, challenges — suddenly they're all around in glorious technicolour and by contrast this side of the wall is grey, shabby, lifeless, dull.

Real Live Preacher posts the third part of the Christmas Story Uncut.#

And so, early one morning, Joseph packed his donkey with everything they owned, shouldered a hefty pack, and led Mary out of Nazareth just as the first rays of sunlight could be seen in the Eastern sky. They tried to be quiet as they weaved between the sleepy houses. The only sound they made was when Mary wept as she passed her childhood home.

No one knew they were leaving, and no one would have said good-bye if they HAD known. It was one of the more ironic moments in history. Two lowly outcasts slipped out of town unnoticed, beginning a journey that would end with the birth of the most important and influential human ever to walk the planet.

Edward Bilodeau comments on Gothamist's notes on how to blog.#

Here are a few of the points worth commenting on:

2. Therefore, for the love of God, do not write about yourself.

Please, by all means, write about whatever you want! All good writing is based on an understanding of the intended audience. That being said, making generalizations about who the audience for your personal site should be is rediculous. Write for yourself, your friends, your family, your co-workers, your peers, Joe Sixpack and your cat. Write, write, write.

Frank Boosman wonders if all the knowledge generated by social software services will be a good or bad thing in the future.#

When social networks reach a billion humans through their cell phones, when social networks form the open directories of the future, when we share our words, our sounds, and our images with our social networks on a continuous basis, when we leave behind trails of the experiences that form our lives, when these trails live in multiple networks and are interconnected, persistent, available, and malleable... then we'll begin to comprehend how social networking will change us, how it will change our perception of ourselves and those around us, how it will change the fundamental nature of how we create, sustain, and destroy relationships.

Metafilter links to a powerful anti-war flash animation in favour of Dennis Kucinich.#

Metafilter links to an amazing house in Canada.#

Robert Scoble links to Peter Jennings on Obesity.#

"Let's say I have a reduced-fat product that takes out 5 grams versus the original, and 10 people choose that product. So, on a population-wide basis, we've saved 50 grams of fat," said Mudd.

"But if I take the regular version of that product and I remove 1 gram of fat, and I do it in a way that doesn't affect the taste, and now 90 people choose that product, on a population-wide basis, I've saved 90 grams of fat. And that's my definition of a meaningful change."

In other words, making every product a little healthier would have an effect on more people.

I'm pretty obese.

Kuro5hin.org links to Tough New Tactics by U.S. Tighten Grip on Iraq Towns.#

As the guerrilla war against Iraqi insurgents intensifies, American soldiers have begun wrapping entire villages in barbed wire.

In selective cases, American soldiers are demolishing buildings thought to be used by Iraqi attackers. They have begun imprisoning the relatives of suspected guerrillas, in hopes of pressing the insurgents to turn themselves in.

[...]

"You have to understand the Arab mind," Capt. Todd Brown, a company commander with the Fourth Infantry Division, said as he stood outside the gates of Abu Hishma. "The only thing they understand is force — force, pride and saving face."

Amy learned one of life's more important lessons: Gatorade sucks, mmmkay?#

Amy reminds us that you should always read your insurance policy a few times before agreeing to it.#

My phone insurance will not cover the following:

A. Nuclear Hazard, meaning any weapon employing atomic fission or fusion; or nuclear reaction or radiation or radioactive contamination from any other cause. But we will pay for direct physical "loss" caused by resulting fire if the fire would be covered under this Coverage Form .

B. War, including undeclared or civil war; warlike action by a military force, including action in hindering or defending against an actual or expected attack, by any government, sovereign or other authority using military personnel or other agents; or Insurrection, rebellions, revolution, usurped power of action taken by government authority in hindering or defending against any of these.

E. "Loss" due to acts caused by or resulting from rodents, insects, vermin, or other wild animals.

Micah Schwartzman links to Tim Dunlop on compulsory voting.#

Back then, I didn't like the idea of being forced to vote. It seemed anti-democratic. And apart from anything, I was completely apolitical, couldn't have given a toss really, simply couldn't be bothered taking the five minutes out of my busy life once every couple of years and going and ticking a few boxes. But as it was compulsory, I had to do something. Most people suggested donkey voting, that is, writng numbers down the page with no thought as to who was getting my vote. But that seemed just as stupid to me as being forced to vote. You either did it right or you didn't do it. If you didn't do it, the least you could do was enrol to vote and then admit you weren't voting, pay your fine, and thus register a small protest against compulsion. Which is what I did until I was about 30.

Of course, the very act of not voting and paying the fine was itself a political act. I was politicised, in other words, by not voting. As a result of contemplating that issue I got interested in other issues and eventually turned into the sad political tragic you see before you today. So compulsory voting turned me into a thinking, voting citizen.

Jason Kottke reports that Bill Murray isn't interested in an Oscar.#

It's a really unattractive sight to see an actor or actress who really wants an Oscar. And you often see it on the show, you see their faces and the desperation is so ugly.

Desperation is not a quality I long for. I'm over the Oscar. Sometimes people win it and you think, "This can't be true." It's a little bit of a popularity contest, too.

Lisa Williams is hilarious...#

Jay finds out about people responding to my blog before I do! He says he has an aggregator but I think he has psychic powers. Those glasses he wears are clearly some sort of Clark Kent thing. Superblogman is clearly lurking underneath.

Dave Winer rants on RSS.#

The name RSS is every bit as good as any other name you can come up with, and it has the advantage that it's already the name everyone uses. Read a marketing text book. Trying to make a new name stick will only make the whole thing weaker.

For example, imagine falling in love with someone. "You're the perfect person for me," you say. "But your name doesn't communicate who you are. Let's have a contest to come up with a new name for you." Now, how clueless would that be?

One more thing. There's a myth going around that there is a way to do publish-subscribe without polling. Not true. At some level, every apparently non-polling technology is built on, you guessed it, polling. It's all just an illusion. Computers don't really do interrupts. At some level it's polling.

The Yeti writes that choosing to be single and not get married is in fact a choice.#

It is difficult for women in their late 30's and 40's to date, because the men available have a much larger pool to draw from. There are less men available then women, with death, jail, and emotionally scars cutting down the pool. Then there's the problem that the longer a woman is single, the more successful and more educated she will probably be. Can she "marry down?" Plus, kids If you are a 44 year old man, you aren't going to have your own kids with a 44 year old woman. A 32 year old, on the other hand...

What ticks me off is these studies are biased in that they are trying to make it okay for people to wait for marriage rather than working on themselves to make themselves marriageable.

If you want to be single, that's fine. If you want to work on your career, that's fine. Recognize it as a choice. A choice you make, and a selfish choice you make. People who do not marry and have kids only have the luxury to do so because other couples do have kids.

The Onion is hilarious.#

Clinton Googles Self:

NEW YORK—Citing curiosity as his primary motive, Bill Clinton typed his own name into the popular search engine Google.com during a lull in his daily activities, the former president reported Monday.

"I had no idea I would get 2,790,000 results!" Clinton said while seated before the Apple PowerBook in his Harlem office. "Besides all the news articles, there were encyclopedia entries, links to Amazon for books about me, and tons of photos, too. I even came across some frame captures from those Rock The Vote shows I did back in 1992. I'm going to take a couple of those and make them my desktop picture, once I figure out how to tile them."

Poor People Pretty Much Fucked:

WASHINGTON—According to the results of an intensive two-year study, Americans living below the poverty line are "pretty much fucked," Center for Social and Economic Research executive director Jameson Park announced Monday.

"Although poor people have never had it particularly sweet, America has long been considered the land of opportunity, where upward class mobility is hard work's reward," Park said. "However, our study shows that limited access to quality education and a shortage of employment opportunities in depressed areas all but ensure that, once fucked, an individual tends to stay fucked."