October 28th, 2003

running, bomb tech

Shopping, cooking

I promise, there will at some point be an actual post with trip type details. Like, the planes and overviews and everything.

But for now: Shopping and cooking.

Went to store to get stuff. Wound up getting a Yule gift for Little Fayoumis (beanbag chair, which he's always wanted after seeing mine, of a fabric that the cats won't shred) as well as groceries of the sort that I know we needed.

The air outside is nice and cool. I have opened up the windows.

I was hungry, and noticed the rice left over in the refrigerator. The only way to get people to eat rice around here is to have something to go on top of it, or put it in soup or something. Little Fayoumis's teacher has this thing with giving the class poems for the month, and the poems seem to feature chicken soup with rice. So, that's what I'm making.

I've put rice, chicken pieces, broccoli, carrots, garlic salt, dried onion bits, dill, and curry powder in, so far. I'll probably add a few more spices/herbs tomorrow.
running, bomb tech

The "Anybody But Bush" Party (ramble)

First, a poll, to start things off...

Poll #197428 George W. Bush

Do you think you'll vote for Bush in 2004?

Yes.
1(1.9%)
No.
49(90.7%)
Not enough information; try again later.
2(3.7%)
I'd rather not say.
0(0.0%)
Other. (please discuss in comments)
2(3.7%)


Very unscientific, but the larger the sample size on that, the better. [Edit: Also, the more diverse the sample, the better. This isn't one I want to throw by having only those who are known to dislike Bush voting in. I made it viewable to none for a reason. I'm not going to come to your house at midnight and put you to the question if you vote for him.]


At any rate, I'm seeing a large number of people remarking, saying, declaring, and even ranting that they'll be voting for anyone but Bush. It seems that as more of his activities are drawn out into the light of day, fewer and fewer people actually support him. Even the things that he's done right have been done haphazardly and for the wrong reasons. vidicon is better at preparing well-researched rants than I am. Go ask him about it.

(Yes, Saddam Hussein and his gang were and are awful, awful people. Bush still did not handle the situation at all well. Osama bin Laden can suck my nuts too.)

I'm wondering what is going to happen to Bush's support at this rate. His administration, from what I've been reading around (here, there, and especially in sos_usa) depends on smoke and mirrors, dark corners and the undersides of rocks, to keep itself alive. When opponents and concerned citizens come in with ventilation fans, spotlights, levers, and big smashy objects to uncover the truths and reasons behind some of the actions, Bush is going to be looking worse and worse.

But, supposing at the nadir of his popularity, Bush found Saddam or bin Laden? Wouldn't everyone want to vote for the man who brought those great evildoers to justice? Wouldn't anyone want to know how he'd managed to pull them out of his ass just in time to get himself re-elected?

I'm telling you this: if Bush produces any notable Bad Guy at the 11th hour before the vote, I'm not voting for him. I feel he's a cheap-labor conservative who's bungled this administration enough so that any accidental successes he has in worthy areas are more than balanced out by all his previous errors. The man has managed to sink the country deeper into debt with what should have been a booming wartime economy. He is a religious fanatic without the wisdom to appreciate the viewpoints of religions other than his. He has managed to erase the sympathy of other nations that was caused by the terrorist attacks, by being the very picture of the bully-boy American. With all that against him, I don't care if he manages to get the endorsement of the Christ Himself (note lack of in-vain here; I'm saying this as someone who's had distinct religious experiences involving that particular deity), I'm still not voting for the fellow!


Smoke, mirrors, dark corners, and the undersides of rocks. Those are places that no honest politician has a place being. With that in mind, consider: Could we possibly elect someone worse than Bush?

sithjawa and I discussed it. I proposed Donald Duck as a worse president. "No," she said. "We've had a figurehead President before." It just matters what interests are controlling the figurehead President, and more importantly, what their methods are.

Any President, party, or special interest that depends on the concealment, spin-doctoring, obfuscation, manipulation, et cetera, of information, is not one to be trusted. Let loose the papers and tapes! Share the dirty laundry with the world! The only exception I could see fit to make for concealing information would be things such as not revealing the identities of covert operatives. And gee, what did the Bush administration just have happen? (Ideally, of course, one would not need anonymous observers about, but that's not going to happen any time soon.)

[Edit: After I wrote this, I rambled about the various types of concealing information that people could do, and which forms were acceptable.]


Read sos_usa. Read metaphorge. Read vidicon. And never trust anything that thinks for itself unless you can see where it keeps its brain.



[Edit: from a comment to quillismightier, who kindly pimped this: See, what I'm doing here is comparable to the sort of sermon one would give to the converted. Most of us have seen or heard news articles to back my points, so one's brain can fill in the backing to my points, and you'll be nodding knowledgeably at what I have to say, and not notice that I'm never actually supporting what I say.

If this were to be an article intended to sway someone who's sitting on the fence, or convince a supporter of his to defect to at least a more neutral camp, I would have to include properly cited sources to back up everything I say. Which metaphorge and vidicon are much, much better at. ]
  • Current Mood
    awake, no energy
running, bomb tech

Hidden things, former friends

(Spurred by three different things that went well together)


Why are hidden things bad? Well, there are different kinds of hidden things. Some are bad and some are good.

There are things that are hidden to prevent damage from being done to innocents. Potentially dangerous things are concealed from those who would misuse them through lack of knowledge and skill, or those who would deliberately misuse them. Those include hiding dangerous things away from small children, and hiding information that could be used to harm people who have done no wrong away from those who would do wrong (say, hiding personal and confidential information secure from crackers and marketing goons).

There are the things that are hidden to prevent damage from being done to guilty parties. Who killed JFK. Who left the slugs in the hall. These are largely hidings of deeds and evidence, evasions of responsibility. There are some instances, surely, where this might be the only humane thing to do (such as the literary Cordelia Naismith's defence of the mad and loyal Constantine Bothari's version of justice), but by and large, I don't approve of it.

Collapse )

There are good things that are hidden to be revealed with proper timing. Holiday presents. Happy surprises. Good information that has hierarchial issues (one tends to tell the immediate family and friends first of an engagement). Some good things wouldn't have half as much impact, or be half as delightful, without concealment to aid in the effect.

There are good things that are hidden away, not to be revealed. This is often wasteful of the good thing in question. However, much of the stuff that's treated this way is treated so to keep harm from being done to it by those who would unknowingly or deliberately misuse it.

Finally, there are those things that are not deliberately hidden, just overlooked, or not discovered yet. The usual reasons are overfamiliarity, not seeing that which is hidden in plain sight, and underfamiliarity, the "Oh, I didn't know it was possible...!". Reasons for not looking further into things include lack of resources, lack of interest, the thought that it might uncover danger/unpleasantness. Probably more.


Friendship is an interesting thing. Everyone meets people, and gets to know them a little. Some people are asshats, some people are saints, and most people are somewhere in the middle.

One person's approaching-asshat may be another's approaching-saint, of course. That's just the way it works. Different values, different tastes, different styles, different priorities, and lots of miscommunications.

Thing is, when someone's discovering themself, and what their values and priorities are, they're going to find that around them, perhaps in some of the people they thought they treasured the most, are conflicting values, opposing priorities. The other parties may be perfectly OK people, just not suited to the newly-defined priorities of the one. Should the one have children, and the one's friends wind up to be toxically rabid childfree advocates or even college students uninterested in the whole domesticity thing, there will likely be some parting of ways, amicable or not.

The first acquaintances to go if the one is uncovering the hidden areas of oneself are typically the ones least open to change, the ones only attached shallowly.

As one becomes more familiar with the self, and with others, the nature of friendship becomes more clear. Are the friends really the sort of friend who would come over at midnight with cause? If not, is that OK? Are the friends the sort that one would not wish to come over at all? Are those friends OK with that?


Unequal loyalty is betrayal in the egg. (Thank you, cantankerous Ista.)

...
running, bomb tech

Addendum:

It is sometimes difficult to distinguish "hidden against misuse" from "hidden to protect those who wish to evade responsibility". Those who wish to evade responsibility take full advantage of this.
running, bomb tech

Woohoo!

Called Darkside. Got Darkside. Asked him how his schedule was. He teased me for a while before finally relenting and letting me know that yes, he'd gotten it off.

WOOHOO!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
running, bomb tech

Whee! (again)

According to grifyn, I am "...an endless source of unsettling information..."

...which sounds about right.
running, bomb tech

Dust

...

And just when I fool myself into thinking I'm capable, something like this happens.

I don't want to touch other people's fragile stuff. I can't reach high things.

I never grew up dusting.

It's still my fault. Or it feels that way.
running, bomb tech

Bullshitfuck!

Well, I've narrowed the network flakiness down to Tigereye and/or the switch. It's the switch or the card-and-dongle or both the motherfucking ports or some non-hardware flakiness.

*snif* I'm never playing with any of you guys ever again!
  • Current Mood
    pissed off pissed off
running, bomb tech

Stuff, things

What I want to do: Call Dell, attempt to figure out whether they can help me figure out what is going on with my computer.

What I need: To look up in my memories section of the journal where I put that locked entry containing the stuff I needed to communicate with Dell.

What is not happening: stuff loading.

What is also not happening: Lunatic feeling able to do anything useful.
running, bomb tech

Party

OK. I need to know:

a) Who's coming (or not)
b) When you're coming (or not)
c) What you're bringing


This is a potluck kind of party, y0. We will have some stuff in the way of drinks and eats, but my energy level is way the heck down, and I may not have quite as much in the way of stuff like chocolate covered cherries as I did last time around. (Though they are very Sithly.)
running, bomb tech

Peevish whining

Computer issue fixed, kinda. The support guy had me take it down to 10Mbps and half-duplex. I'm glad I'm a geek.

The issue seems to be the thing's driver. Grr, argh, reinstall driver. Need to do that.

Also, cleaning up room.

Did I mention that my luggage got searched by hand?