A geek modifies technology to better or improve his life.

A non-geek modifies his life to fit around technology.

A geek modifies technology to fit around his life.

A non-geek asks, “What does this do?”

A geek wonders, “What can I make this do?”

Share this:

“all of the following conditions are met.”

The attorney at the hearing could only show that one of the conditions were met, so the judge said that he lacked authority to take any action on the attorney’s request.

The attorney responded as follows:

So your interpretation of the court rule is that all of the conditions have to be met, your honor?

The judge replied:

That’s what “all” means counselor.

Share this:

I find the show funny because it exposes how arbitrary “bad words” are. SpongeBob and Patrick are oblivious to any meaning of whatever word they were saying. But despite the fact it had no meaning, it was still “bad.”

If being against profanity isn’t odd enough, some people are upset even when profanity is not used. CBS has a new show entitled, $#*! My Dad. And despite the fact that the profanity is specifically “bleeped” out, some idiots are still calling it indecent.

Exactly what harm will the use of $#*! cause? Will it make a child go without food? Nope. Will it lead to global warming? Nope. Will it lead to a crime against people or property? Nope. Will it deprive anyone of anything? Nope. But yet, for some reason the characters $, #, *, and ! should not appear together on TV. I don’t get it.

Share this:

I love this quote from his daughter who called him a “hero” but also said his actions were “inappropriate.”

To me an inappropriate act is more synonymous with farting in public or talking during a movie. In my mind calling Stack’s acts of destruction, murder, and attempted murder merely “inappropriate” is in itself way beyond inappropriate.

But then again, maybe she’s as nuts as her dad.

Share this:

Now people don’t like having their faults shoved in their faces. So I understand why people from Saginaw are upset about the comic. However, the complaints have taken a new turn. The comic is now considered racist.

I know what you just did. You just went back and looked at the comic to see if there were any black people in it. There’s not any. All of the people depicted in the comic appear to be white.

I know what you’re thinking, how could it be racist when there are no black people in it. Heck, it does not even reference any black people. it does not even hint to any black people.

But that’s not good enough for some people. Some people are so adept at seeing racism they can find it where it doesn’t objectively exist. These people find such racism not through the objective expressed throught, but through mind reading. Here’s one of many comments about this comic:

While the message was not totally untrue, the cartoon was indeed racist.
The person who created it thought they were clever by not making the Saginaw character black, but instead making him a “white” man with a black mask totally covering his face and black gloves covering his hands.

I guarantee you he thinks he is the most clever person in the world right now because he created an out for himself.

If you accuse him of being racist, I guarantee you he will argue that it is not a black man, but a white man with a mask on.

Son, you are not that clever.

I think it is funny that the Bay City residents don’t realize that they were being insulted also. He was calling you a bunch of shaved head, unkempt, t shirt wearing rubes that drink beer all day.

You would think someone with an Arab sounding name like his (not the most favored people in this country right now) would be a little smarter.

Let’s go through that comment.

First, the poster admits the facts in the comic are true. In other words, the objective ideas plainly expressed in the comic are not racist. He admits that. But he doesn’t stop there.

The poster reads the “thoughts” of the two comic strip writers and derived the additional “truth” that the real intent of the black mask was to hide the “truth” that the Saginaw resident was actually black. (Of course the poster assumes a priori the black mask is actually black, it could be dark brown, dark blue, or dark purple, as far as he knows.)

That “intent” cannot be objectively found anywhere in the comic. You have to read the mind of the writer and artist to find out their hidden intent. And this mind reading can occur without even meeting the writer and artist. Not only can the mind reading occur across vast distances, it can occur over vast amount of time. These mind readers can infer the hidden racist intent of authors who have been dead for centuries.

(And of course it’s hilarious that the mind reader ends his comment by slamming people of middle eastern descent as “not the most favored people in this country right now.” I don’t need to be a mind reader to know that was a slam.)

The problem with this subjective mind-reading method for finding racism is that it belittles real racism. There was a time when there were laws on the books that held that black people were second class citizens. Any black person who stepped out of line would have been lynched. Well, lynched after a horrific beating.

Right now, as I speak, there are racist pricks out there who are making plans to kill our President. I hope they don’t succeed. I hope they don’t even carry out an attempt. But they are there.

But despite the dangers and harm of objective racism, everyone is wasting time focusing on subjective racism. Compared to being beating to a pulp and then hung from a tree to die, or having our President killed, exactly why would anyone care about an admittedly factually accurate comic?

Share this:

Let me handle this. The media keep hollering about saying that I beat Michael. That’s not true. You know what this beat started — beat started in the slavery days. Where they used to beat the slaves and then they used to torture them.

That’s where these beating started. These slave masters, and that’s where that come from. But, hey, there’s a lot of people in America, Larry, a lot of people in America spank their kids, you know? They say they don’t, they’re lying. They’re lying.

Now, Michael was never beaten by me, I’ve never beaten at all.

First is the immediate and bizarre “let me handle this.” Exactly who else was supposed to handle it? Did Palin write this for Joe? It sounds like the type of insane thing she’d say in an interview.

Next, he claims that the media says that he beat Michael. He claims it’s not true.

Next, he clarifies that by narrowly defining “beating” to include only slave masters beating slaves. Something it would have been impossible for him to do. So when he says its “not true” his clarification lets us know that he has never beat Michael in any slave master context, not in the context of the word “beat” actually used by people.

Next, he admits he did spank Michael. Of course he never comes out and says it. He merely argues that every parent does it, and because he’s a parent, it follows that he did it too. By the way Joe, I have a 6 year old girl and an 8 year old boy, and I can honestly say I’ve never spanked my kids for disciplinary reasons. And I’m not lying.

And finally he concludes by saying he never beat Michael, under the very narrow definition he gave earlier.

The clear and easy answer to King’s question would have been:

I spanked Michael.

But no. We get a red herring rant against slavery, we get a very narrow and subjective definition of an otherwise common word, and we get an admission couched in the phrase, “If everyone does it, it’s OK, right?”

Is it any wonder that Michael turned out insane? God, with a dad like Joe I actually feel sorry for MJ.

Share this:

Let’s think about that. From what I’ve read, Palin’s reelection as governor was a lock. So under what bizarre “Palin logic” did she consider herself a “lame duck”?

Lame duck generally means “an elected official or group continuing to hold political office during the period between the election and the inauguration of a successor.” It’s usually applied to presidents who are finishing their second terms, because they are unable to run for a third term. To put it another way, a lame duck is a politician without any power because someone new will soon be taking over.

But in Palin’s situation no one else was taking over. She had 18 months left on her term plus she was the front runner for the next term. So how was she a lame duck? I haven’t a clue.

Apparently, under Palin’s bizarre world view, the first day a politician is sworn into office, he or she immediately becomes a lame duck. And also apparently, the proper thing to do in that circumstance is to resign from office the second day.

To Palin, the point of governance is not the hum-drum day-to-day act of being a public servant, making decisions and helping real people. Nope, the point of governance is being elected and nothing else. All that other stuff from the time of being sworn in and resigning the next day is a pure waste of time.

This was summed up perfectly by Bruce Reed from the Slate:

Palin’s resignation is a symptom of what’s crippling the Republican Party of late: Governing has become an unwelcome distraction.

And it should be noted, that Palin’s “selfish act” in refusing to take a lame duck salary for the next 18 months is pure nonsense. Someone will have to take over for her. That someone will be paid. So regardless of Palin’s action, the money will be spent. Her action does not save the citizens of Alaska any money.

Share this: