Why Ron Paul is Doomed and Everything is Futile: An Ode to LSD

Why Ron Paul is Doomed and Everything is Futile: An Ode to LSD. After a few weeks of peace and quiet, it appears once again that the Asses are getting serious about health care. Who could doubt this kind of language:

It is a serious issue that obviously confronts the Congress that has to be resolved in a way consistent with our opportunity to pass healthcare for all Americans[1]

Well. That is a serious sentence that obviously confronts the subject of that sentence in a way consistent with the opportunity for the speaker to speak the sentence in a way that all Americans can understand. Thanks for keeping us in the loop.

Yes, the media has been saying that all this health care business might finally get passed in coming weeks, through a special serious maneuver the Congress people have been brewing up. As House speaker Nancy Pelosi describes it: "...pass the bill so you can find out what's in it, away from the fog of controversy."[3]

Thank you Nancy. We're never going to know what we're doing until we finally get everything done--and doing it's the only way to do that. This is serious stuff, after all.

And we can't forget the final decider in this: the agent of Change, the chief himself, the man with 3 million followers. Barack Obama. Here's what he has to say about it:

How many people would like a proposal that holds insurance companies more accountable? How many people would like to give Americans the same insurance choices that members of Congress get? And how many would like a proposal that brings down costs for everyone? That’s our proposal.[4]

If only they had told us how perfect it would be from the very beginning! At least we know now--for if not now, when? If not us, who? There are so many questions, but luckily it seems like everybody in Washington finally knows what's going on.

Except, of course, the Republicans--pack of idiots they are! They couldn't even decide whether to boo or cheer the unequivocal winner of the CPAC straw poll: Ron Paul.

But really, can we blame them? Ron Paul, the man with 3 million ideas and only 3,000 followers. With so much controversy brewing in Congress all the time, what could he possibly accomplish in the white house? Brilliant though he is, Ron Paul doesn't agree with practically anybody in Congress about practically anything. That is not a good equation for Change. Too much fogging controversy.

And even that is assuming Ron Paul ever makes it to the presidency, which he won't. The young CPAC voters don't realize what the media can do to Republicans. Think Obama had it bad with his middle name? Ron's last name is a first name. He wouldn't make it a month.

Anyways, the Elephants will probably nominate the Queen of Russia, or whatever MSNBC claims Sarah Palin claims she is. But it doesn't matter. Won't Obama and the Asses fix all of our problems before then anyways, or is it just a giant ball of confusing politics and tangled self-interests? Will we ever have a government that can agree on something that can help us, or will we always be an afterthought to their grand plans to save the world? It makes you wish there weren't so much to worry about.

Of course, there's always LSD.

A list of great things that came out of the 60's

• The civil rights movement
• The Beatles
• Tie dye
• Space travel
• ATMs
• The computer mouse
• Twister, Operation, and air hockey
• LED lights and lasers
• Mustangs
• BASIC

Notes:

1. House Majority leader Steny Hoyer speaking on federal funding for abortions. Source: Christian Science Monitor[2]
2. Oh, snap. I forgot that quote wasn't from the New York Times. I guess it's not real.
3. Source: Peter Roff, U.S. News and World Report
4. Source: The New York Times (extra serious and real)

Bruised Asses

Bruised AssesIs it just me, or is our government becoming a reality TV show? Will all this Asses vs. Elephants drama ever be broadcast at 9/8 central on Wednesdays and hosted by Carson Daly? Will we ever limit voting to only attractive bisexuals? Could New York be New York's next governor? Any of this is possible and, as far as I'm concerned, permissible. U.S. politics has already lost any semblance it had to a serious attempt at governing a country, so we might as well get it on tape.

I am pondering this, Dear Lewsers, because the news this week has me so very confused. What exactly does Barack Obama's 2012 re-election bid have to do with the governor of Virginia? It obviously has something to do with him, because everything has something to do with everything else, if you think about it. The main question is, why is the Virginia gubernatorial race (and the New Jersey one) being covered as a story about Obama and the Asses?

Let me give you a taste of what I'm talking about. Here is the opening paragraph to The Week's main story, Democrats bruised at the polls (emphasis added):

Republicans rebounded sharply from their 2008 defeat this week, winning governors' seats in New Jersey and Virginia in an election marked by crosscurrents. Virginia Republican Bob McDonnell won 62 percent of independents in crushing Democrat Creigh Deeds, 59 percent to 41 percent. In New Jersey, Republican challenger Chris Christie ousted Democratic incumbent Jon Corzine, 48 percent to 45 percent. Exit polls in both states revealed that voters remain generally positive about President Obama personally, but have soured on the economy. The president, who invested substantial time and resources campaigning for Corzine, proved to have little influence there or in Virginia, despite his victory in those states one year ago. "Americans want our presidents to succeed," said Mississippi Gov. Haley Barbour, chairman of the Republican Governors Association. "But the president's policies are very unpopular, and they are hurting Democrats."

Unless you cannot see bold, you will notice that most of that paragraph is gossip about Obama instead of news about things that actually matter. The rest of the page-long article, of course, continues in a similar fashion. Now, there are two thingies that can be pointed out about this paragraph, and out I will point them.

The first thingie is that the media cares mostly about the people in the government, not the government itself. In particular, they seem to care about which people are winning the battles of the day, frivolous though those battles may be. They could be fighting about whether Republicans or Democrats have historically bigger dicks, and the news would cover it. [1] Now, maybe two gubernatorial elections isn't frivolous. But isn't it silly to spin the elections and make it about Obama's popularity instead of about what is going to happen (or what did happen) in those two states?

It is silly to us normal, thinking people. But to the Lewsers in the media, it's another reality brawl. The focus is who is ahead, and the who is never the citizens.

One of my favorite characters in this soap is The Independents. The media loves to stir up emotion by throwing out statistics about this infamous group, The Independents, the deciders of who is more popular. Of course, we know that the Conservatives and Liberals will vote for whoever is the zaniest and whackiest on their own side. But The Independents, ah! Those are the smart ones. Get 59 percent of the vote, and well, that is fine. But 62 percent of The Independent vote, now that is something to be proud of. This candidate must truly be a winner.

The truth is (and this brings me to the second thingie), this just proves that Independents don't know what the fuck they're talking about. If they voted based on some special platform or set of values, they'd already know which party they were in. Anybody who can define their political beliefs and prioritize them can decide whether they are an Ass or an Elephant or maybe a Libertarian or some other whacky thing. But Independents are none of these, which must mean they just wing it every election. They must be voting based on the glitz and the hype (part of which, usually, is them).

The sad thing is that all of this subjectivity is encouraged. It should not matter whether voters "approve" of Obama. They should be asked if they approve of his handling of Guantanamo Bay or Iraq or Afghanistan, or if they approve of his Supreme Court nominee or his nuclear proliferation efforts. Instead, the media pollsters ask you to be polarized. Is he good or is he bad? Should his side win? Decide if you like him or not and help us affect public opinion. It's like American Idol, except without even the reasoning voice of Simon to guide us.

Another sad thing is that the politicians eat it up, too. They are like actors in a film shoot. The Independents and the media give them their motivation, and they act out the scene. Remember when the Secretary of the Treasury fell to his knees and begged Nancy Pelosi to sign on to the stimulus plan? Or when that guy threw his shoe at G.W. and he dodged it like a champ? Remember the Beer Summit? Remember the town halls?

Of course you do. We all do, because they are stupid and unimportant. They are attached to important things, like the stimulus plan, relations with the Middle East, racial profiling, and health care, but they themselves are just drama. But unlike Real World vs. Road Rules where the winners get a cash prize and the losers go home empty handed, the losers in this drama are us. We lose because nobody is willing to seriously discuss government anymore, so we don't get any Change.

Now, Dear Lewsers, take this moment of clarity I am handing you and consider the futility of our republic. What does your vote count for? If the popularity pendulum is to swing forever from Ass to Elephant, why does a vote even matter? Won't both sides eventually get to do everything they want anyways? [2].

It's depressing, I know, and I leave you with more questions than answers. But it is not my style, Dearest of Dears, to end on such a sad note. So let me just say that I personally am reveling that the Asses got beat, or at least, as The Week put it, bruised. That is something that we can all be happy about. I gave up on government a while ago, and so from this comfy futon the whole election process is just an exercise in slapstick. And slapstick goes great with popcorn. Mhmm, I love it. Get some butter on there, some salt...

Notes:

1. Libertarians have huge dicks
2. And forget checks and balances. That shit is long dead.

How to give a proper Turing Test

How to give a proper Turing TestIt recently occurred to me that I have not met all my online contacts in person. Although this kind of cyber-acquaintance has become increasingly common, to me it presents a conundrum: how do I know if one of my IM buddies is French? Also importantly, how do I know that I am conversing with a mortal, and not a mindless computer?

To address this second question, I introduce the concept of a Turing Test. Now, a true TT consists of three parties: the human interviewer, the control subject (a human), and the computer. The idea is that the interviewer must try and guess which subject is the computer and which is the human, after conversing with both of them.

For my more practical and less academic purposes, though, I decided to come up with a modified TT. The MTT consists of two parties: the interviewer (yours truly) and the subject, who may either be a human or a computer. The idea with the MTT is for the interviewer to make an educated guess as to whether the subject is man or machine.

After much research and development [1], I've formulated the following Modified Turing Test:

Question 1: Who's your daddy? Provide an example.

Question 2: Are you French?

Question 3: Explain human emotion and prove that you have it.

This test can be given via email, IM, or any other internet protocol. Typically, I feel it is only polite (assuming that your subject turns out to be human) to preface the test with a disclaimer like the following:

Since I have never met you in person, I am unsure if you are a human or a machine. Therefore, I will administer unto you a Turing Test which will allow me to decide.

Questions one and three should be self-explanatory. On question two, the normal human response is "God, no!" or something to that affect. Of course, French people will respond by saying something along the lines of "Oui, monsieur ou maddame. Je suis un Francophone."

If you have any questions, feel free to email me. I do not accept emails from robots, so I do ask that you include your answers to the above three questions in the subject line.

Notes:

1. Before I created this test, I had another method. It involved me flying to Miami to meet the subject in person. This worked out well, but I decided to devise the written test in order to be more cost- and fuel-efficient.

Why We Hate Microsoft

Why we hate Microsoft I was recently smirked at for declaring that Microsoft is evil.

To be fair, my own smirk probably did deserve to be smirked back at--it usually does. What really bothered me was the gentleman's response to my statement, which was something akin to, "I know it's popular to hate Microsoft, but if it weren't for them you wouldn't be clicking and dragging those nice boxes on the screen all the time--you know, windows."

Ahem.

It really gets to me when people pretend that I don't understand something obvious. The gentleman was right in one respect: it is popular for young computer/programming enthusiasts like myself to hate Microsoft. What he didn't recognize is the reason that we hate Microsoft. I understand that Microsoft has accomplished quite a bit in the world of technology; this is not what I hate them for. I hate them because it is time for them to go away or change drastically, and they are unlikely to do either.

People like me believe that we are entering a new age in computing. This new age is different from the previous one in the following ways:

1. Source code and protocol standards are usually open
2. Services are free or cheap, and they are monetized using advertising
3. Nothing is centralized

Don't think this is true? Think about the great new things that you use every day. Firefox: open source, free, maintained with input from the internet community. Twitter: open API (that's where all the sweet Twitter apps come from), free, usable from a million different places (not just Twitter.com). Facebook has similar properties. So does Gmail. So do lots of blogs and other popular web sites. So do most popular new things.

Obviously, the prominence of a company like Microsoft is a problem in such an age. In the Microsoft Age, the rules played out more or less like this:

• Source code is secret, because...
• All software products and services are expensive, because...
• Everything is centralized around Microsoft products

This was fine when Microsoft had all the best products for most peoples' needs, and it is why they've had so much success. But peoples' needs are changing drastically and quickly, and their model no longer fits. Which is why it's such a pain when they continue using their model, and why we hate them.

A few days ago I was at a presentation/networking event held by Microsoft and a couple of other big companies at Northeastern University. The idea was to convince business majors that they want to work at Microsoft. At a few points, I couldn't help laughing out loud (or at least smirking out loud) at some things the presenter had in his PowerPoint presentation and his speech that I found to be oh-so-typical Microsoft talk:

• To become the Thought Leaders of tomorrow, you must be surrounded and mentored by the Thought Leaders of today
• Life @ Microsoft = Work + Play + People
• We invented the fun and then others took it and continued to do it (said during an answer to a question)

On a more serious note, Microsoft really does get in the way of the modern developer.

Internet Explorer is a great example. A good deal of being a good web developer is being good at getting things to work in IE despite its many quirks and bugs. Were it not for IE, web sites could be made twice as fast. [1]

Of course, the other Microsoft platform that programs are commonly developed for is Windows, which is just as naggy and annoying. Why is it that great software so often premiers only on Windows, with the Linux/Mac versions released months down the line (ahem, Chrome)? It premiers on Windows because Windows dominates the operating system market. It takes months to develop versions for everything else because developing for everything else is totally different. This explains why horrible languages such as Java are so popular: Java developers only have to deal with a slightly-less-annoying "virtual machine" and can forget the nightmare that is Windows.

And don't even get me started on Windows from the user's perspective. It is a nightmare. Try setting up some simple server mirrors on Windows without buying something really expensive. When working at a development company recently, I remember noticing how much time I spent just grappling with different Microsoft products in order to get my work done. But when it came time to commit to the CVS server running on a Linux box? No problem. Deploying a new build on another Linux server? Smooth. It's hard to pinpoint what exactly the problem is with Windows, but it's there. [2]

This is why we hate Microsoft. They are the big hippopotamus that won't go away. And yes, hating them is popular now. Bite me.

Notes:

1. Granted, IE8 is a promising improvement. But still, how long did it take them to catch up to the rest of the internet? Clue: answer in years.
2. I know I sound like a hack for having an unexplainable, mystery gripe with Windows. The fact is that everything just seems to go more smoothly when I'm not using it. Maybe it's just a placebo effect. As the presenter at that Northeastern event said at least five times, "Mac really did a good marketing job with those commercials."

The MyFox Drinking Game

Throughout Boston, frustrated college students have been searching for new ways to get drunk. My brothers and sisters, I bring you the MyFox Drinking Game, inspired by Fox 25's chief "meteorologist", Kevin Lemanowicz.

The rules are simple: watch for each of the below Kevin Lemannerisms and, when you spot one, call out the corresponding phrase and enjoy the appropriate number of chugs with all your drinking buddies (if you're drinking alone, it's recommended that you call them out anyways; maybe your neighbors will be intrigued and tune in for a taste of the smugness).

The game is best played with beer, wine, or champagne--anything you can chug. If you're playing with hard alcohol, you can decide whether to substitute a single chug for a full shot or a half. Either way, you can trust Kevo to get you totally crunk any night of the week except Beach Wednesdays. Let's take Boston by storm!!

The Kevin Lemannerisms

Pointing into the camera: one chug

Take a chug whenever Kevin points into the camera--presumably at you, the viewer. We're still not sure whether this is a conscious Lemannerism or not. Most Lemannerists to date think it is a subconscious attempt to remind the audience that we are here and he is there, soaking up the spotlight. Shout out: Fuck you, Kevin!

The Fonzi Point: two chugs

Originally the "double point", the Fonzi Point occurs when Kevin points both fingers at once into the camera. Just cover up all those gray hairs, throw a leather jacket on him, and, ayyyyyy! We got ourselves a regular Fonzi! Shout out: Ayyyyyy!

The Pat: one chug

The Pat is a rather flamboyant gesture whereby Kevin seems to pat an imaginary puppy or some other cute animal on the head. If you watch Fox 25 long enough, you'll get what I mean. Or you could try imagining your ex-girlfriend's hand motions as she explains last week's episode of Gossip Girl. Shout out: Omg omg!

The CLAW: one chug

The CLAW is one of the most special Lemannerisms we know of. It occurs when Kevin shapes one of his hands in the form of a bear claw, as if he is attempting to scratch the life out of the nearest storm or low pressure zone. Shout out: THE CLAWWWWWW!

The Double CLAW: two chugs

The Double CLAW, while frightening to most viewers, is completely harmless. Just imagine he is doing the Monster Mash. It happens, of course, when Kevin makes the CLAW shape in both of his hands. Shout out: we-do-the-MASH (sung)

Smug skies ahead: two chugs

Only use this rule if you can hold your drinks, as it happens in nearly every one of Kevin's intros and outros. Take two chugs if Kevin says something smug or makes a smug grin. Not only is this a frequent occurrence, but if you're partying with smart people (MIT sorority girls, for example) it can lead to interesting and hilarious drunk debates about what is considered smug and what isn't. Shout out: smug skies ahead!

For Advanced Players

There is an additional variant of the MyFox Drinking Game whereby the last person to make the appropriate shout-out must suffer a cruel and unusual punishment. You can settle for an extra chug or two, or you can make them spin around on one foot singing "We Love You Conrad" from Bye Bye Birdie, replacing "Conrad" with "Kevin", of course. You'll have to YouTube the song if you don't know it, but here are the lyrics:

We love you Kevin
Oh yes we do
We love you Kevin
And we'll be true
When you're not near us
We're blue
Oh, Kevin, we love you!

For Kevin Lemanowicz

No hard feelings, Kev. You just have a hilarious weathercast. You know I'm just playin' wichu dog!! Just think, you are now responsible for thousands of college-age jerks getting drunk off the weather. The next generation of weathermen is in your claws.