Thank God I wasn't homeschooled?

Stephen Colbert gave Conservapedia a good whipping today when he mentioned their current crusade to de-liberalize the Bible. I figure they got tired of all the "Hippie Jesus" jokes and want to strengthen their claim to Him, in the attempt to finally be able to "prove" that they're right. You know you're begging the question when you start rewriting your so-called sacred texts. The argument will no longer be "the bible is true because the bible tells us so," but rather "the bible says we're right because we wrote in the bible that you're wrong."

Anyway, so I paid my first visit in a long time and other than lots of heavy-handed banning going on, I noticed the following "homework" answer (ref. here)

7. Charity is based on the foundation of a successful free market. Or is a successful free market based on a foundation of charity? Describe and explain which is the cart, and which is the horse (in other words, which comes first or is most important, charity or the free market). I think that free market comes first and is the horse - yes, it is true that charity is a huge part of America today, but would people even have the freedom and liberty to decide to be charitable to whatever organization they wish if there was no free market? Consider the communist time when Hitler was ruling - do you think those people under his tyrannical ruling would have been able to donate whatever they wanted to whatever cause they wanted? No! You weren't even allowed to help a Jew, unless you were doing it secretly, and if you were caught you were penalized harshly. Compare that to America today, where there is a free market where people have the right to do whatever they please!

Oh, dear lord, where to start, where to start?

Let's ignore that one should question why the... um... "teacher?"... actually thinks there's a need to explain the (completely unnecessary) horse and cart metaphor. These are bumpkins, not Amish- they don't understand that God didn't create cars, and that they're an evolution of transportation methods developed by humans. Maybe he should have just said "chariot"- they had those in the bible...

One could begin by mentioning that Nazis weren't communist (that was Russia- you know- with the red flags and the bears). Then follow that up with a "what the hell does Hitler have to do with charity?" and point out that saving someone from persecution is simply the moral (one could even say "Christian") thing to do, and not charity. Then close with "just because you were forbidden to help the state-oppressed minorities doesn't mean you couldn't do other charitable works, such as, say making cookies for the Hitler Youth bake-off*."

Looking at an earlier historical perspective, one could not help suspect the free market is a rather new concept, but charity is rooted in antiquity. Thus, there's obviously no need for a free market for charity to exist. I could easily find a couple good quotes in the old testament, but that'd be a waste of time because a self-righteous Christian wouldn't try to argue that point.

Then I suppose the next step would be to say there's no need for charity for a free market to exist either, pointing out that charity doesn't help the free market. To say it provides some counterbalance to allow an unsustainable system built on greed to survive in-between crashes by redistributing the wealth of a divided society... that'd be communist-speak.

Looking back at the structure of the answer I have to wonder at the state of mind of the student. I can't see much deep thought here, other than trying to come up with some way to incorporate Nazis (a "Godwinian answer," if you will). Then there's the use of choosing what looks like an arbitrary answer to serve the current master (it's an economics class, so naturally the free market must win), followed by a weak straw-man to suggest that there was ever a real choice. Finally, comes the useless anecdote with a healthy dose of that good old chest-thumping: "I'm American and we're better than everyone, so our system must be God's will."

If this student doesn't get a failing grade, that's just one more thing wrong with this "school."

* Yes, that's quite nonsensical, but given the context I really couldn't care less.

A conversation with Dell

I just got off a chat with Dell customer support. I'm not going to provide comments and leave you to learn what you will from it. I've removed my email address for obvious reasons. Enjoy.

5:38:04 PM		Michael K	Initial Question/Comment: Please stop sending advertisements
5:38:09 PM		System	You are now being connected to an agent. Thank you for using Dell Chat
5:38:09 PM		System	Connected with CU_Rep_Mylyne
5:38:35 PM		CU_Rep_Mylyne	Welcome to Dell Sales Chat. My name is Myles . Ill be your personal sales agent today. What may i help you purchase?
5:39:02 PM		Michael K	Stop sending me advertisements
5:39:05 PM		CU_Rep_Mylyne	You can also email us at us_dhs_chat_reply@dell.com. We are available from 8am-11pm CST, Monday-Sunday. Rest assured that we’ll get back to you as soon as possible.
5:39:31 PM		CU_Rep_Mylyne	sure im gonna put a note on your profile .
5:40:06 PM		CU_Rep_Mylyne	but in order for me to do that i need to get the phone number so i can pull up your account and put a note on it .
5:40:25 PM		Michael K	You don't have an account for me. I've never purchased a Dell, and I never would.
5:42:07 PM		CU_Rep_Mylyne	alright im sorry for that .
5:42:42 PM		CU_Rep_Mylyne	well request to stop sending an advertisement to you .
5:42:58 PM		Michael K	What?
5:43:01 PM		CU_Rep_Mylyne	will there be anything else i can help you aside from that ?
5:43:03 PM		Michael K	Use punctuation
5:44:32 PM		CU_Rep_Mylyne	oh im sorry for that we are kinda having volumes of chat right now , and im sorry for the error .
5:45:14 PM		Michael K	"kinda"? Are you eleven years-old?
5:46:32 PM		CU_Rep_Mylyne	oh im sory michael for that .
5:46:52 PM		CU_Rep_Mylyne	will there be anything else i can help you ?
5:47:05 PM		Michael K	Yes. Stop sending me advertising material.

5:48:02 PM		CU_Rep_Mylyne	yes michael
5:48:54 PM		CU_Rep_Mylyne	are we still connected ?
5:48:58 PM		Michael K	"Yes Michael" what? Are you going to stop? Have you already removed me from your mailing list?
5:50:17 PM		CU_Rep_Mylyne	yes just put a note on it

5:50:31 PM

Michael K

Put a note on what? How could you possibly have done that if I haven't given you my full name or email address?

5:52:13 PM		CU_Rep_Mylyne	it shows here a last name kaan?
5:52:34 PM		Michael K	No
5:52:58 PM		CU_Rep_Mylyne	is that the one ? may i have your last name please or email address
5:53:15 PM		Michael K	MYEMAILNAME+gamesforwin@THISISWHEREIGETMYEMAIL.com

5:55:13 PM		CU_Rep_Mylyne	may i have the copmplete address please
5:55:27 PM		Michael K	That is the complete address. What are you missing?
5:55:38 PM		CU_Rep_Mylyne	i mean complete address please ?
5:55:48 PM		Michael K	Again, I ask. What is missing?

5:58:39 PM		CU_Rep_Mylyne	it shows different address on the same name .
5:59:39 PM		CU_Rep_Mylyne	i need the complete address you shows up your profile michael so i can put a note there
5:59:44 PM		CU_Rep_Mylyne	are we still connected
5:59:54 PM		Michael K	I don't have a profile
6:00:12 PM		Michael K	You do not have my home address
6:00:30 PM		Michael K	Just take the email address I gave you, and remove me from all mailing lists you have
6:00:40 PM		Michael K	It's really not that difficult to understand

6:02:27 PM		Michael K	Not if you're telling the truth
6:04:19 PM		CU_Rep_Mylyne	im so sorry for the inconvinient . but i already put a note that you dont want to recieve an advertisement from us .
6:04:24 PM		System	CU_Rep_Mylyne has left this session!
6:04:24 PM		System	The session has ended!

Have you ever heard of Conservapedia?

It's the place to go for knowledge if Wikipedia isn't your cup of tea. If you're a member of the great unwashed (sometimes literally) masses of unthinking Christians infesting the ranks of U.S. voters, that is.

Check out this article, for example:
http://www.conservapedia.com/World_History_Lecture_Three#The_Rise_of_Christianity

"The ancient world had several founders of great religions, but only one performed miracles: Jesus of Nazareth. His resurrection is the single greatest event in the history of the world. Do we know when it occurred?"

That's strange. My bible teacher spent a lot of time on the subject of Moses' miracles, not to mention several other prominent prophets. I'd also argue that the creation (if you subscribe to that theory) was probably a far greater event.

This "TK" person is a SysOp on CP, yet acts as an editor as well, locking pages after throwing in his/her own "take" on things. They don't like unlocking pages either. Despite the whole "fallen creation", they still believe they're incapable of failure.

If you're in the mood for a good laugh, check out the site rules, which naturally had to be called "commandments", as if that website is anywhere near important enough to use such terminology.

Dipshits.

A Half Hour's Worth of Straw

I'm watching an episode of "The Half Hour News Hour" I recorded on my MythTV box earlier this week. I heard about it where most probably did- Jon Stewart's "The Daily Show". Lewis Black, who mentioned the show, stated the obvious- that this show, run on the "Fox News" channel, is a ripoff of his show. Obviously, but oh so very different.

Where to start? It's bad for lots of reasons and on so many levels. Let's just take a couple of content issues, and ignore stuff like poor acting and production.

First- its pride of bias. They go beyond the obvious bias that Fox News shows have (but hide behind the claim "fair and balanced"), outright showing where they see themselves differing from the liberals they so hate. Counting the topics they try to make fun of or criticize, we have:
Al Gore, Hollywood (several times, including specifically at Sean Penn, who they deem deserving of being hit by a North Korean nuke), environmentalists, New Jersey (twice- what's with the hostility towards Jersey?), gun control, the ACLU, atheists, and surprisingly- the John McCain campaign (maybe that's what makes the "fair" happen). Oh, and how could they forget to try to make fun of Cindy Sheehan, Nanci Pelosi's face, Joe Biden's bald spot, and Michael Moore's gut (yup- just another dumb fat joke, like Republican senators are all thin). Oh, and they had Dennis Miller on to provide the minute of hate segment on our evil enemies- Michael Moore and Cuba.

How many times, and in how many ways, do the producers of this garbage want to make sure you know what their view is (and yours should be, or God will kill you). To compare it to the Daily Show is (besides insulting towards the later) quite pointless. Where the Daily Show makes pointed examples of stupidity and hypocrisy using (mostly*) factual events and (often*) actual clips (*they make sure the line between the two is obvious), this show makes up highly unlikely circumstances which are loosely "based on actual events," and then proceeds to bash away. Watching this cruft should be equated to listening to half an hour of straw man arguments.

The poke at atheists was strange. During what I suppose is the equivalent of the interview segment (where the Daily Show actually has real people being interviewed, though blatantly for the purpose book/movie plugging), they had actual books by Richard Dawkins and Christopher Hitchens on the table. Then they brought three actors playing fake authors of fake similar books, and proceeded to kill off one and then a second, making it blatantly obvious that God was in fact killing the atheists (a wonderful example of classic monotheistic rule by fear and something that really pisses off Hitchens). The third (and author of "I Hate God!") is then made to look ridiculous and hypocritical, to the point where he calls his book "fiction." I'd love to get Dawkins' reaction to this, though I expect he would simply ignore it due to its vulgarity. The notion that a reasoning person such as Dawkins would act in such a manner is ridiculous, due to the fact that he takes pride in being a rational person, who does not allow superstition to influence his actions.

It's strange. I'm watching it, as the last living "author" is groveling, praying and singing "Amazing Grace," and I can't help but think of people like the few "bad apples" who caused the L.A. Archdiocese to pay big-time for. Now don't go thinking I'm saying religious folk are bad, because I'm not, and neither do the real-life authors of such books. But it's amazing that people who do claim absolute moral integrity as a consequence of their religious beliefs can still be really crummy people.

I'm not big on God. I never really have been. I've never gone so far as to believe or declare myself an Atheist- comes from being brought up into a religion (with quite the vengeful deity at that). I probably will some day, but I haven't done my homework yet. Half of my family is secular, and the other very conservatively observant. They're all very fine human beings and there's no argument that would persuade me that belief or lack thereof had much to do with that fact.

One last thing I want to leave you with. The Fox News channel, isn't a news channel. It's just a channel Murdoch calls "Fox News", so you don't think the Simpsons are going to be on at 7. It's not so much about telling you what's new in the world, but giving you what he'd like the news to be. CNN and the other media channels aren't news channels anymore- in the pursuit of the almighty dollar they dumbed themselves down so they could play on Fox's level. I swear- after listening to the kind of questions the press asked at Bush's press conference last week- the world is lucky he can't hold the office beyond 2008.

I guess all I have left to say in this one is "God bless the twenty-second amendment and the United States of America."

Campbel's Stitch'n Soup

Every once in a while, while viewing my the BBC's "Live bookmarks" that come pre-configured in Firefox, I open an article even though I really do know better.

Today it was an article about model Naomi Campbell, who has been sentenced to do some dirty work (and pay medical expenses, but that doesn't help get her in the tabloids).

I don't about these so-called "famous" people. Their accomplishments are often mediocre at best. Many of them who are followed because of their looks, are often unappealing to me- take Paris Hilton for example: Yuck!

But back to my original chain of thought. So once in a while, I actually get something out of the articles written about these empty, shallow creatures. Honest.

In this case, I was given a fascinating question to ponder. No, not what is Campbell going to wear when she's mopping the floor. What I'm wondering with all my mental might is how on Earth does throwing a cellphone at somebody give them four stitches???

I don't get it. I mean, did she slingshot it around her head, thereby providing it with the kind of heat you only get from a major-league star pitcher? Did it have a spike collar accessory? Did the woman already have stitches in the exact point of impact, which were broken, thus requiring re-stitching? What is the statistical likelihood of that happening? How many more semesters of physics would I need to calculate the airspeed velocity of an European cellphone if one were throwing it by the husk? Is Naomi Campbell an ex-pitcher in a major league and how does that affect above statistics?