Vote! because your neighbors are watching.

Is this really cool or really sad?

Funny

I was eating my lunch when I put the following video on. It made me laugh so hard that spewed my food all over my keyboard.

Maxwell Street

When I was a high school student taking a semester (or a year) of American History, we did a week or two on local History. For that class I wrote a research paper on Chicago's famous Maxwell Street (which, at the time, had disappeared only a few years prior). My history teacher sent that paper in to some contest, without informing me, and I won some prize. The prize wasn't monetary, it was more like something that I can put on my college application (I don't think I ever did).

Anyway, what's my point? Well, I don't think I won that contest because I was a great writer (though, without knowing the writing ability of my peers, I can't say for sure how to define mediocrity) . Instead, I think that I just really cared about the subject matter. My research on Maxwell street was my introduction to American Sociology. It was an example of how despite all the differences between American culture and the European/Italian culture I grew up in there were some really fundamental similarities. It's a lesson that has stayed with me for the rest of my life.

A few months ago, I learned of this movie and I really hope to get to see it soon.

I speak about 150 languages.

When I tell someone I study Linguistics the first question I get (95% of the time) is "How many languages do you speak?".

The answer is 2 fluently, 2 barely. But I know the characteristics of dozens of languages, I just can't speak them. But linguists don't need to speak more than one or two languages. And the only reason why they're expected to know more than one has to do with historical accident. A linguist just has to know things about languages.

The thing that interests me most about linguistics is that there's so much interesting stuff happening when we talk (in any language) and we typically never think about it.

But none of that really matters because the average joe the plumber knows little about Linguistics. So they'll keep asking "How many languages do you speak?" when I tell them I study Linguistics. From now on, I'm going to answer "About 150"

My new favoritest quote

"I have so often seen how people come by the name of genius; in the same way, that is, as certain insects come by the name of millipede — not because they have that number of feet, but because most people won't count up to fourteen." — Georg Christoph Lichtenberg

rednecks for obama

I enjoyed reading this article on 'rednecks for obama' a couple of days ago. Just stumbled on it again because firefox's address bar is all complicated.

Genesis 7, after a long absence.

I'm not giving up on a critical reading of the bible. I've just been very busy with life. Here we go:

Then the Lord said to Noah, ‘Go into the ark, you and all your household, for I have seen that you alone are righteous before me in this generation. ²Take with you seven pairs of all clean animals, the male and its mate; and a pair of the animals that are not clean, the male and its mate; ³and seven pairs of the birds of the air also, male and female, to keep their kind alive on the face of all the earth. ⁴For in seven days I will send rain on the earth for forty days and forty nights; and every living thing that I have made I will blot out from the face of the ground.’ ⁵And Noah did all that the Lord had commanded him.

When I first heard this story I was actually 11 years old. At that age I was still an avid lover of animals. I had been since I was at least 5. I had a set of collector's cards, printed on each of these cards were the facts of some animal (things like their location and habitat on earth, what they ate, whether they were diurnal or nocturnal, etc). I had about 600 of these cards and I didn't even have the complete set. So when I was told this story my first thought was NO WAY! You can't fit all these animals on a boat, there's too many! And they wouldn't get along, most would be pray but many would be predators. They need room to survive!

I brought that up in my chatechism class (where I remember first hearing this story) and I was given two possible answers. The first was definitely NOT part of canon "Noah didn't take all the animals. he left some behind and they either survived by swimming or God re-created them later." The second answer was the answer that people who believe in the literal interpretation continue to use: "It was a miracle."

I certainly couldn't argue with that. So then came my second question: "what's an unclean animal?" I assume there must be one true answer to this question, but it seems that different religions have different answers to these questions. But what did God mean when he used this terminology? Will we ever know? Why do they get a slimmer chance to survive? Does unclean mean bad?

6 Noah was six hundred years old when the flood of waters came on the earth. ⁷And Noah with his sons and his wife and his sons’ wives went into the ark to escape the waters of the flood. ⁸Of clean animals, and of animals that are not clean, and of birds, and of everything that creeps on the ground, ⁹two and two, male and female, went into the ark with Noah, as God had commanded Noah. ¹⁰And after seven days the waters of the flood came on the earth.

11 In the six-hundredth year of Noah’s life, in the second month, on the seventeenth day of the month, on that day all the fountains of the great deep burst forth, and the windows of the heavens were opened. ¹²The rain fell on the earth for forty days and forty nights. ¹³On the very same day Noah with his sons, Shem and Ham and Japheth, and Noah’s wife and the three wives of his sons, entered the ark, ¹⁴they and every wild animal of every kind, and all domestic animals of every kind, and every creeping thing that creeps on the earth, and every bird of every kind—every bird, every winged creature. ¹⁵They went into the ark with Noah, two and two of all flesh in which there was the breath of life. ¹⁶And those that entered, male and female of all flesh, went in as God had commanded him; and the Lord shut him in.

17 The flood continued for forty days on the earth; and the waters increased, and bore up the ark, and it rose high above the earth. ¹⁸The waters swelled and increased greatly on the earth; and the ark floated on the face of the waters. ¹⁹The waters swelled so mightily on the earth that all the high mountains under the whole heaven were covered; ²⁰the waters swelled above the mountains, covering them fifteen cubits deep. ²¹And all flesh died that moved on the earth, birds, domestic animals, wild animals, all swarming creatures that swarm on the earth, and all human beings; ²²everything on dry land in whose nostrils was the breath of life died. ²³He blotted out every living thing that was on the face of the ground, human beings and animals and creeping things and birds of the air; they were blotted out from the earth. Only Noah was left, and those that were with him in the ark. ²⁴And the waters swelled on the earth for one hundred and fifty days.

God could have snapped his fingers and made all evil things dissappear. God can do anything. God, decided that the horrifying method of death by drowning would be more fitting. It wasn't until I got to High School that I realized how horrifying this was. God loves all of his children, so I've been told. Tough love doesn't even begin to describe Genesis 7.

Why are we so complacent about the TSA?

The TSA doesn't make us safe. The TSA makes a lot of us simply feel safe. So my question to you is "How much are you willing to pay for that feeling of safety?" Are you willing to pay 6.8 billion dollars?

I'm not willing to pay the 6.8 billion dollars they're getting.

Now, you might be one of those people who thinks that the TSA is keeping us safe. That may be a debatable point. Now, I know that the TSA is not mostly responsible for preventing us from taking a bottle of water onto the plane, or making us put our mini tube of toothpaste into a plastic baggie. I know that they also put "security officers" onto trains and subway stations. I just don't think that this is money well spent. 6.8 billion dollars! For the illusion of safety?

Read this article.

I've had plenty of personal experience with the TSA at airports and I have never been pleased with their work. At their very best their presence delays me by a minute.

The only way that the Aviation division of the TSA is going to catch a terrorist is to literally arrest anyone attempting to take a container of liquid larger than 3oz. Any leniency, any mistake can lead to a disaster. We've fixed a leaky bucket by putting it over another leaky bucket. Only the second leaky bucket costs an average of 3.8 billion dollars a year (since 2001).

I'm sick of our complacency about this. Just because the average American never goes anywhere near an airport doesn't mean we should put up with the inanity of the TSA's aviation division. And we definitely shouldn't put up with giving them another 6.8 billion dollars.

But seriously. Read that article.

Sarah Palin

I got this before the crew at language log!

Proof that I have free time, but not enough

If I had more free time I would be having this argument with someone. However, I do seem to find the time to discover that the argument has been had before.

Want to be informed?

Read this article and be more informed. It'll only take 15 minutes of your life. I promise, it's worth it.

Why I wouldn't vote for McCain

I listen to political stories on NPR very often (I basically use their rss feed to hand pick the stories I want to listen to) and, as with any other news organization, they often interview the man or woman 'on the street' about who they think they'll vote for and why.

A bit more than half the time I hear supporters of McCain talking about how they like his experience and his character. The rest of the time, McCain supporters just don't like Obama for one reason or another (they don't seem to mention any of McCain's positive qualities, they just focus on Obama's negative ones).

As for the Obama supporters, half the time I hear them talking about that mystical "change" while the other half they talk about how horrible the past 8 years have been (like the McCain supporters, choosing to focus on the negative qualities of a republican administration rather than Obama's positive qualities).

If I were to be interviewed by an organization like NPR and they asked me who I would support in this election, here's what I would say:

"I can't guarantee that I would vote for Obama because living in a state which is strongly democratic, I believe my vote might best be served as a vote to a third party candidate since I strongly object to a party system, let alone a dual party system, for the presidency (for the house and senate seats, a party system is fine, though I would prefer a multi-party system).

However, if the choice was between these two men alone I would choose Obama.

There are several reasons why I would choose Obama over McCain. Here are three.

Obama has managed to make me strongly believe that he is an intelligent, clever, and thoughtful human being. Despite his incredibly busy lifestyle he seems to be remarkably informed about so many different subjects: From issues related to what ethanol means to midwestern farmers, to issues related to what is the fundamental differences among Sunni and Shia muslims. He can learn and digest these issues quickly and he can speak intelligently about them to audiences of different knowledge levels. He is smart, and that shouldn't just count for something in a president. That should be the number one most important issue (not the only issue, but the most important). Somehow, the issue of intelligence has become embroiled into this other issue of Elitism. That's incredibly disheartening but that's for another rant.

Second, I feel more comfortable with where Obama comes from, his child hood, the difficulties he was able to overcome (with respect to his race and his lack of contact with his father and mother). Any human being who can go through that and come out as well adjusted as Obama gets additional points. Not to mention the fact that Obama didn't grow up well-to-do. He may not have been poor, but the majority of the opportunities he has had he had to fight for. I believe that the kind of childhood that Obama experienced leads a person to mature at an early age. But more importantly, it gives a person the perspective shared by a much larger portion of the US population. Obama knows what it's like to be middle class because he was middle class and he has friends who are middle class.

Furthermore, Obama has more or less stuck to his promise to eliminate special interest groups from the presidential procedure. I have never understood how ANYONE could see lobbying as a positive thing. I mean, I understand that somebody needs to be in Washington speaking for those issues that are being ignored, issues that don't have a voice. But the fact that this system of lobbying has devolved into what it is today is shocking, embarrassing, and completely maddening. The fact that people around me are not as appalled as I am about this makes me very sad, mostly because it has forced the Obama campaign to stop using this as a major talking point since nobody gives a shit. But Obama has done a good job stepping away from the pockets of oil companies and other big corporations, and he has managed to get pretty far doing so when no one thought it could happen.

Those are the main reasons why I would vote for Obama. There are many others, but we'll stick to those for now.

Why wouldn't I vote for McCain?

McCain has not given me enough evidence that he is an intelligent man. That's not to say that he doesn't know things. His experience has certainly made him knowledgeable. And McCain has many great qualities, qualities that he fostered in his time in the military and as the progenitor of two four-star generals. Qualities like honor and courage and a well developed sense of justice. These are all qualities which will serve a president well, but they aren't enough. John McCain doesn't seem to be able to quickly think himself through a tough question. John McCain lacks information about a great many topics. Despite his long time in the Senate, John McCain has not kept up with or dove deep into many issues which are going to be critical in the next 4 years. Issues like the Economy, African Geopolitics, Midwestern issues, Science: These are issues that John McCain has not been able to speak about intelligently without being prepped by his advisers. Now, I know that advisers are going to be necessary. No human being can know something about everything. But I do want my president to take a personal interest in all of the issues, not just the ones which happen to be critical for you because you are a member of some subcommittee. I want my president to know everything that I know about the world PLUS MORE. I know John McCain knows more about certain things than I do, but McCain lacks knowledge about things that I know very well, things that I'm not even that interested about, things that I just managed to learn because I picked up a national geographic magazine or a news paper, and things that a president should know. On the other hand, Obama's level of knowledge about these things always seems to shock and surprise me. Obama has proven to me that he knows more than I do about things a president should know.

Next, McCain had a privileged childhood. The grandson of a four-star general and the son of a four-star general is going to be a member of the upper class. He's never going to grow up eating Spam or mac and cheese. He's going to go to some of the best schools and he's going to interact with children who are going to be tomorrow's CEOs. There are benefits to growing up privileged, of course. Going to the best schools is going to give you a leg up in terms of knowledge. You'll have the opportunities to travel the world and learn more about it. You are (presumably) not going to have to waste your time flipping burgers or working retail to make enough money to buy a beat up chevy to drive your ass around. But it's going to give you a profound sense of what America is that is certainly not the sense I (and many other Americans) share.

Lastly, McCain is absolutely going to enforce the status quo. There was a time when McCain deserved the moniker "Maverick". He actually did approach the middle of the aisle on many issues. In 2000, if I hadn't vote for Nader, I would have actually considered McCain as a possibility (whereas Bush couldn't hold a candle to anyone else in that election). But he must have learned a brutal lesson in 2000. The only way to win the republican vote (or, arguably, the democratic vote) is to polarize, to stick to the yelling points and to hug and appease the televangelists and to complain about the size of government and reduce the opposition to the phrase "tax and spend liberal", repeating it until it loses all meaning. McCain of 2000 is not McCain of 2008. I respect the fact that he disagreed with a lot of what Bush stood for, but McCain's agenda is no longer what it used to be. McCain's agenda is now equivalent to the Republican agenda. And the Republican agenda simply doesn't work. It hasn't worked for 8 years and it isn't going to work in the next 4.

Listen, I'm all for smaller government and state's rights. If each individual state chose how it wanted to handle abortion or health care things would be more manageable. But I don't share the optimism that Republicans share about how human beings go about their daily lives. People are greedy, people are mean, people don't trust each other, people don't make rational decisions and choices, people don't know how to save their money, people in high places don't care about people in low places because they can't relate or because there are more pressing issues, people will only look out for themselves and their immediate family members, people will drive drunk, people will use their weapons to kill other people (guns, knives, baseball bats, or electrical wire), people will speed on the highway, people will put dangerous chemicals in the cheetos because it is cost effective, people will not follow emissions standards because it if fantastically easy to rationalize it as someone else's problem.

For as early as I can remember, the republican agenda, while often admirable like the libertarian agenda, seems to rest on this notion that people are generally good and things will work out on their own without the intervention of some oppressive government. I would like that to be true, and I also think that people are generally good BUT NOT WHEN IT COUNTS. I've seen people I care about a lot, and think very highly of, be complete assholes about really important things. It is a constant struggle for me to keep myself in check, I do stupid things that harm others more often than I care to admit! Therefore I fundamentally deny the conclusions resulting from the republican perspective. Ironically, the republican ideologies of 'lower spending', 'smaller government,' and 'pull yourselves up by your bootstraps interaction with the citizenry' are disappearing from the party actions even though they are more prevolent in the rhetoric, basing the differences between the Democrats and Republicans on false ideologies. But that's for another rant.

In short: McCain is not clever enough to be president, he doesn't share my basic values, and he is stuck in the non-functioning republican ideology, mostly as a result of his campaign tactics. Obama is smart, shares my basic values, and truly wants to change the way the political process runs (whether he'll be able to or not is a different question). Am i going to vote for Obama? I'm not sure yet since I have the luxury of living in California. But if McCain gets into office it will be another blow to my already crumbling expectations of my fellow Americans.

Oh, and if I hear another man on the street interview where the man on the street says "McCain has experience and Obama hasn't got any" or "I think we need Change and Obama can bring us that change" I'm going to throw my shoe at the tv/radio. If a person can't have a more complex thought about these two men running for the highest office in the land then either
A: you aren't doing your interview right
B: they are uninformed and don't deserve to be interviewed and put on the radio
C: they haven't thought about the issue hard enough and don't deserve to be interviewed and put on the radio
D: we are truly doomed as a society.

Thank you"

That's how I would answer the question. It would be edited by the producers, or cut entirely.

Agreed

The funny funny-man John Hodgman makes a sobering point in his blog.

ADVANTAGE PALIN.

The daily show gets daily showed?

On Tuesday Bill Maher came on the daily show. In '99, Bill Maher came on the daily show and had some pretty interesting things to tell John Stewart about McCain.