More on the speech

Something I forgot to mention, but that struck me as interesting. Traditionally the candidate stands "above the fray" when it comes to making specific attacks or comments. The VP and other members of the party are the ones with the claws, while the candidate tries to stay "on message".

Watching the convention, though, except for Carter's (apparently non-vetted) speech, Kerry has been far the most strident about the mistakes and problems with the Bush administration (although still keeping it polite IMO). I don't know how politically wise this was, but I think it says something for the man - he is the candidate, and he is the one speaking up.

Then again, it may have been entirely planned that way - I've heard Gore say in the past that one of his mistakes was not speaking up more. The whole positive/negative issue is tough because negative advertising (particularly from a sound-bite perspective) is so much more effective - provided the public doesn't get outraged (which explains how someone like Ashcroft can end up losing to a corpse).

The fact is that the public seems to have an almost bottomless capacity for negativity. This isn't helped by the fact that the believers on both side simply just don't get how people don't see what they see. I am often in awe at how people can still support Bush, and friends of mine who support Bush don't understand how it possible that I don't think he is great. Both sides end up spluttering at each other - it is quite literally arguing religion.

by Arlen 

Kerry's speech

I just watched Kerry's speech on CNN, and was impressed (although it was occasionally a bit corny). In particular, I think that he did a good job of speaking to specific issues - not that anyone with a computer (apparently excluding most mainstream reporters) wouldn't know his plans, but it is one of the most constant complaints about his speeches. He also was more relaxed than usual and the speech came across (at least to me) as very human and down-to-earth.

Of course, immediately after, CNN cut to a republican spokesman who complained he didn't speak enough specifically about his plans for Iraq, and claimed he only devoted 2 1/2 sentences to the issue. I didn't count (although I am sure some helpful blogger will do that at some point), but I suspect that a) there was more content about Iraq than that (although some may not have been direct), b) claiming that 1/2 of a sentence was about something sounds pretty odd without seeing specific punctuation and c) we are going to hear that claim over and over again in the next week.

Another thing brought up by the republican spokesperson was Kerry's record in the senate and how he constantly changed his mind. Moments later, another correspondent referred to the fact that Kerry is the most liberal member of the Senate (whatever the hell that means).

That gave me pause. If he is the most liberal person in the Senate, then surely he is consistently liberal. I mean, if he kept voting different ways, then surely Ted Kennedy or some more consistently liberal voter would be the "more liberal". So is he consistent but liberal, or inconsistent (and therefore moderate?). Maybe I'm being too binary here, but it seems as though you can't have it both ways.

While we are on the subject, didn't the media use to at least pretend to be unbiased? Sure, they would have clearly labeled people on to carefully present both sides, but the journalists themselves tried to stay neutral. Now, there doesn't seem much pretense - if not direct statements, the sneers of the journalists seem to be quite communicative (or am I imagining things). I switched to Fox during a commercial and, while the sneer was there, the journalist actually seemed slightly more balanced in his statements - how is that for scary?

What remains to be seen is if and how the bulk of Americans will react. It seems as though there are three very distinct groups - die-hard conservatives, die-hard liberals and (the vast majority) people who are only vaguely aware of what is going on in the world and in the country. So, for the majority, they didn't watch the speech (or any speech by anyone) and will only hear whatever can be shoved into 30-second sound-bites. This really terrifies me.

by Arlen 

Cthulu casemod

Okay, given the name of my website, I had to link to this (via boingboing) - the Necronomicase. The original site no longer seems to be around, but it is a Cthulu-inspired computer case (and yes, I would love to have one!)

For all those people who think computers are evil - just remove the doubt!!! Now, if I can just get the guy to create a cow version. . .

by Arlen 

Switched to DSL!

Well, I have all but dumped my evil Adelphia cable modem for DSL - I still have the cable modem while I finish configuring things, but so far my Speakeasy DSL is much more reliable and consistent, and their support people, unlike Adelphia, don't appear to be morons!

When things were working well, Adelphia's speed was nice, but they have terms of service that can drive you mad. They don't allow access to VPN's, which was causing me a great deal of grief with Microsoft - some people with whom I work, and, their support people don't seem to know anything - I literally had to explain what http means to one of them!

The Speakeasy people have been great so far, and they comped me the service call to run an outside splitter (I am at 19,800 feet, just barely within the 20K allowed for DSL, and the house wiring seemed to put me over).

See how things are going in a few weeks. . .

by Arlen 

I am inexcusable!!!

A nice old gentleman has been visiting me for the past few months, generally with another person (although it seems to be a different person every time). I believe he is a Jehovah's witness. The first time he came I spent half an hour or so talking to him (remember, locked up at home by myself - I'll talk to anyone) about belief in a god, etc. I should mention at this point that I am an atheist and also pretty good at arguing. His final argument was this:

"isn't it just nicer to believe that there is a god out there looking after you?"

To which I agreed - sure, it would be nice (although the idea of having an all-powerful deity looking over my shoulder gives me the screaming heeby-jeebies). However, nicer and true are not remotely the same thing. Anyway, to cut a long story slightly less long, every now and then, he now brings me little books and magazines with various explanations and arguments, maybe brings up a point or two, which I counter, then leaves. He is never pushy and always polite.

I don't know much about the Jehovah's witnesses, but I choose to believe that his motives are good - he thinks he and his group know what is right, and wants to help people (I am going on faith that he doesn't want to lock me in a basement and feed me Jim Jones kool-aid).

I also have to admit that I haven't really been reading the stuff he brings - I read a few pages, get annoyed by the arguments, and stop. Although surprisingly well written, the articles tend to play games with fallacies, particularly using a bogus straw-man argument, where the author attempts to define something (such as evolution) incorrectly, then argues that the incorrect argument is not valid, so therefore (using a false-dilemma fallacy) there must be a god (see how I am cleverly using technical names for fallacies so that I sound more erudite and believable).

For example, in one book he gave me, there is much made of the fact that scientists disagree about specific points of the theory of evolution,therefore there is no agreement on evolution, therefore there is a god, and creationism is correct (as an aside, I find it interesting that the spell-checker wants to replace creationism with cretinism - some secret message?).

Of course scientists discuss and disagree about points in a theory - all science is theory and, while even scientists forget it from time to time, theories only last until they are improved upon (ex: Descartes-> Newton -> Einstein) or replaced entirely (ex: Spontaneous creation-> Bacteria). (Okay, more strangeness with the spell-checker - it knows about Descartes, but not Newton or Einstein!).

Anyway, I told you all that to tell you this! He dropped off a magazine yesterday with the following (emphasis mine):

Since "the world's creation" -- particularly since the creation of intelligent human creatures, who could perceive God's existence -- it has been evident that there is a Creator of immense power, a God worthy of devotion. Those who fail to acknowledge God's glory are thus inexcusable.

Hmm

It amazes me how many problems I have with that statement:

1. Lets start with the word "perceive" - defined as "To become aware of directly through any of the senses, especially sight or hearing" - I've never seen or heard god? Have you? Do you have any photos? recordings?

2. It has been evident... - has it been? Ah - the previous paragraph provides the proof:

"Belief in God is not blind faith, however, for there is overwhelming evidence of God's existence. (Hebrews 11:1)." - Ah, 'cause the bible says - a tad circular.

...or the quote of an expert (he is an Astronomer, therefore a scientist, therefore speaks for all scientists)?

"Astronomer Allan Sandage said: 'I find it quite improbably that such order [in the universe] came out of chaos'"

Okay, Allan, you believe in God. Fine by me. However, your belief doesn't constitute any evidence as far as I can see.

Now, for the inexcusable bit. Apparently "Paul told Christians in Rome that God's 'invisible qualities are clearly seen from the world's creation onward [snip] so that they [disbelievers] are inexcusable.'" Complete with verse and chapter numbers.

I'm not even going to dignify the clearly seen invisible things. Here is my big problem. Let's assume for the sake of argument that these invisible qualities are somehow clearly seen (burning bush in the back yard or something). What, precisely, about my not recognizing this being (presumably also not worshipping, etc.) make me inexcusable?

 

• Is it the power?
• Is it the creation bit?
• Is it the promised reward?

 

Okay, since we are playing devil's advocate (some would say literally), lets look at each of these:

1. You should worship god because he is powerful! Well, the neighborhood bully is powerful in relative terms - not worshipping him. Ashcroft's justice department is pretty powerful - not worshipping that (barely stomaching that). The ability to do nasty things to me (or even to do nice things for me) doesn't warrant worship. Fear, maybe (Is that why religious people talk about being god-fearing all the time?).

2. You should worship god because he created everything! Well, my parents created me and I don't worship them. I respect them, but not for the act of creation - if they had created me, then left me in an alley somewhere, I certainly wouldn't worship them.

3. You should worship god so that you can be rewarded by going to heaven when you die? Interesting? This tyrant figure apparently requires worship or you won't get a sweetie after class (that's candy for you Americans). More (although not mentioned in this article) you must follow a specific set of rules, most of which are of the worship me, just me, no one but me, etc., and, oh, by the way, don't kill your neighbor's yak. . .

Speaking for myself, if this were real, I a) would not want to get rewarded based on arbitrary rules to which I never agreed, and b) if the alternative is eternal punishment, then any person/being/deity imposing such a system is a tyrant that should be overthrown.

Fortunately for me, I am quite convinced he does not exist. And you can believe me because I am a computer programmer, so speak for all technical people!!

by Arlen 

Why a blog?

It is the 21st century. Everybody has a web-site and a blog. Just looking at the number of visitors to my site (about 150 at the time of this writing), it is quite obvious that not many people will see anything written here.

However, I have two (or so) motives for creating a web-site and a blog.

1. I am a programmer with a great deal of experience building rich-client and database applications. However, I have not done that much with the web since the really early days. This site gives me a place to play around and learn some new things. I use Visual Studio as an editor, but I am basically hand-coding the site, and building my own utilities. Of course I could always use other tools, but then I wouldn't learn as much. . .

2. I like to babble - I have opinions on a great deal of things and I work at home by myself, so this gives me an outlet. I don't particularly expect many others to read what I write, but as my grandfather used to say after the 100th time telling the same joke - I'm not telling it to make you laugh, I'm telling it to make me laugh!

 

FWIW I am using a tool called Blog - Web Blog Builder by Fahim A. Farook to populate the blog. So far, so good - the editing portions of the tool seem good, although the administration UI needs some work (I am something of a UI bigot - I am sure you will hear more from me on that subject later). I will let you (my imaginary reader) know how it goes.

by Arlen