| hello from dimmy |
[Jul. 24th, 2006|03:38 pm] |
|
well my friends it appears that my flowers for algernon formula wore off. it is a bit too bad but as the troubador sang 'these are the breaks'. if you are good i may soon tell you about MY INVISIBLE POWER. |
|
|
| Howdy |
[Apr. 25th, 2005|11:40 pm] |
I'm still alive! This has been a busy month. Many things are afoot. Since you were kind enough to stop by, though, I'll share a moderately interesting notion with you.
From the inception of this site, I've enjoyed being "unashamedly partisan," though from time to time I've somewhat undermined my own arguments, inadvertently or otherwise. The details aren't important. What I want to discuss here are the potential dangers of partisanship.
What motivates a partisan? The slippery slope argument. Is there any other motivation? No, there is not. The slippery slope argument is all that is necessary and sufficient to create a hard-core partisan. The partisan sees that something has changed, or is changing, or has been proposed to change, and from the direction of that change infers that the people behind it will not be satisfied with that change, but rather, that it is merely the first installment of a long line of similar and progressively more absurd and destructive changes.
The problem, however, is that this extrapolation is not always correct. In general, I find that a good rule of thumb is that Democrats overestimate the evil of Republicans, and Republicans underestimate the evil of Democrats. See, told you I was partisan.
But seriously, there comes a time, or many successive times, when one tires of reacting with shock and horror to the latest depredations of one's political opponents, because after all, once something happens a couple thousand times, it really shouldn't be all that surprising when it happens for the 2001st time. And one must always consider the irritating possibility that many opponents are good-hearted people who mean well and just don't have a whole lot of sense. That doesn't mean they should be allowed to get away with any old thing, but it might mean that they shouldn't be hated for it.
In the end, I think there is one fundamental truth of politics, and perhaps of morality in general. If an action is bad, it is bad because it produces worse results (whether they're immediately obvious or not) than the alternatives. If it produces worse results, then it will ultimately succumb to the actions of people who have better ideas. This may not be much consolation to the hundreds or millions of people who will suffer unimaginable pain as a result of the bad ideas, but at least one can take some solace in the knowledge that the bad ideas are self-defeating in the long run.
George Orwell argued in 1984 that this is not necessarily the case -- that it is possible for bad ideas to become self-perpetuating. All I can say to that is: maybe, but maybe not.
Have a nice day! |
|
|
| The Four W's |
[Apr. 3rd, 2005|09:18 am] |
In college, Gughunter took a subscription to the "Workers' Vanguard" for a lark. When a new issue arrived, he would usually put it on a flat surface somewhere and intend to read it eventually. On one occasion, he actually did read it; and what was most notable about it, aside from the strident calls to FREE MUMIA!, was a little article about the "Four W's of Polish Communism". Or maybe it was the "Three W's" -- he isn't clear on that point. What is clear is that the term apparently never really caught fire in the English language, at least if Google searches are any indication. Anyway, the only reason that article ranked in the "most notable" category is that, with the aid of a cartoon drawn to the size of one of the pictures accompanying the article, Gughunter was able to use that article to harass a fellow student with a Polish surname starting with W. It was never established whether anyone but Gughunter ever actually thought it was funny.
The reason I bring all this up is that yesterday, one of the at-least-two W's of Polish Anti-Communism passed away -- Karol Wojtyla, a.k.a. The Pope. And the reason I mention his opposition to communism first of all his achievements is that all the other blogs seem to be doing it, as it affords even the least religiously inclined blogger a reason to say "You don't have to be Jewish to love Levy's," metaphorically speaking.
The Pope also talked a lot about what he called a "Culture of Death." I think much of the recent commotion about the Schiavo case has been due, not to the fear of Death itself, but to the fear of a Culture of Death, which is different, but related inasmuch as such cultures like to set Death's schedule, like a mischievous personal assistant who is always scheduling irritating appointments for Death when he's in the middle of working on something else. Anyway, this is about the Pope, not the Schiavo case, so I will end that tangent and simply point you to Michael Schiavo's lawyer's book, Litigation as Spiritual Practice, for further information. Oh, and also I'd like to recommend the latest post from InstaPunk, which is almost certain to make you think if you're in the mood for that.
So, anyway, the Pope talked a lot about a "Culture of Death," and a lot of people thought he was full of hooey. A lot more people thought, well, he has a point, but what are you going to do? And pretty much all of us in first-world societies, even in America, have absorbed certain ideas that are crucial to a Culture of Death. The excellent Boomer Bible is in some ways a guidebook to the ideas underlying a Culture of Death -- perhaps the Punks might say that it is more strictly about a Culture of Meaninglessness or a Culture of Despair, but whatever you call it, there seems to be a fair amount of overlap.
Now that you've gotten to this point, I'll admit that I really don't have anything fresh or new to say about the Pope. I just wanted to note his passing and, even though I speak as a Protestant (and a rather self-indulgent one at that), offer my gratitude for all his hard work. |
|
|
| Tomorrow is a big day |
[Mar. 30th, 2005|02:48 pm] |
Tomorrow, March 31, is the first birthday of Air America Radio. I honestly didn't think it would last this long (in fact, when it came out last year I almost made a bold prediction of its closing down by August 2004, but something stayed my hand). So, congratulations, Air America Radio, from a fellow who's a bit further to the right than y'all.
Okay, back-patting time is over; now get back to the microphone and keep showing America what the left is all about... |
|
|
| Why didn't I think of this? |
[Mar. 29th, 2005|10:54 am] |
'Another company, talktoaliens.com, offers a similar service but with an added twist: users can send a text message or they can dial a phone number and have their voices beamed live into space via a custom designed parabolic dish antenna dubbed the "Intergalactic Transmitter". The service has been available since March 7, and the antenna is operational 24-hours a day.'
If there are aliens out there, I guess it's fortunate that Earth's oldest radio signals probably contain the best music. |
|
|
| A little decency? |
[Mar. 23rd, 2005|05:49 pm] |
InstaPunk has had a bellyful of Terri Schiavo media. I didn't realize there was that much of it out there, though I did indeed watch one clip of her on the Internet -- which ended up getting me much more interested in the case than I might otherwise have been, since to my untrained eye, her condition didn't fit my layman's preconceptions of a "persistent vegetative state." What with vegetables being kind of inert and unresponsive and all. But, since she's almost certainly going to starve to death anyway -- or rather, thirst to death, which comes well before starvation -- I suppose there's something to be said for turning our heads away from the whole hot potato.
The statement that "The basis for my position is that no woman of my acquaintance would want to be filmed or watched by strangers in such circumstances" makes intuitive sense, which is a powerful argument in its favor, since it often seems that most of the problems of modernity involve needlessly complicating matters that we instinctively comprehend. Still, I'm not completely convinced that the "burning building" argument isn't applicable, with the qualification that there is no fireman on hand, only a nation whose natural inclination is to follow InstaPunk's concluding advice and avoid looking at such an unpleasant sight, but which at various times has proven itself capable of being roused enough to send a fireman somewhere.
Having said all that, I am quite happy to be absolved from having to think about the whole business any more, because it was starting to get me a little upset. |
|
|
| An idea that I pray, as a Christian man, you will entertain on its own ****ing merits |
[Mar. 16th, 2005|09:03 pm] |
Before you read this, let me tell you that if you haven't checked Instapunk today, you should. It's chock full of interesting updates.
Now, on to my little message. InstaPunk mentions HBO's series Deadwood in passing, and that reminds me that I should probably say something about it, having watched the whole first season on DVD, and even listened to all the episode commentaries and featurettes.
So, what I have to say is: I enjoyed it a lot.
If you have questions about aspects of the show I have not addressed here, feel free to bring them up in the comments. |
|
|
| Whoa, almost missed it! |
[Mar. 14th, 2005|12:37 pm] |
|
Tomorrow, Tuesday, March 15, is International Eat an Animal for PETA Day. You don't have to literally eat a whole animal, of course, but please do be sure to eat a healthy portion of animal. Chicken wings, barbecued ribs, a big plate of chewy thick-sliced bacon, deep-fried ham-and-turkey sandwich (this is called a "Monte Cristo", though I'd be more inclined to call it "El Dorado")... the world is your oyster. Or perhaps an oyster is your oyster! |
|
|
| A hush fell over the website |
[Mar. 14th, 2005|09:00 am] |
Since the crew at InstaPunk saw fit to give me a kind mention recently, I suppose it's only fitting that I should update this page, and explain why I haven't been updating lately. There are a few contributing factors:
1) I am helping a certain would-be artiste with his "magnum opus" (hence my recent mention of a shiny new thesaurus). It's slow going, but it's going.
2) I thought this site would vanish when I was too cheap to pay for another year, and only the legend of DimPenumbra would live on, shrouded in mystery and recorded only in the big Internet Archive. But it turns out LiveJournal doesn't work that way. So, here we are, then!
3) I don't have a lot to say right now. I think it might have something to do with the phases of the moon.
For the moment, all I can say is, thank you for checking in with me... and keep checking back every so often, because who can say what the future will bring? |
|
|
| Lots of coincidences lately |
[Mar. 2nd, 2005|10:45 am] |
And this time they're not just in my life, but rather, on the international scene! Or at least one Ed Kilgore seems to be seeing a lot of coincidences:
Now I am aware the State Department made the appropriate noises, as its predecessors would have done, after the Hariri assassination, about Syrian dominance of Lebanon, and I also know the Bush administration has been generally hostile towards the Syrian government, as has been U.S. policy for as long as I can remember. But it literally never crossed my mind that Bush's fans would credit him with for this positive event, as though his pro-democracy speeches exercise some sort of rhetorical enchantment.
This is the kind of thinking, of course, that has convinced God knows how many people that Ronald Reagan personally won the Cold War. It's the old post hoc ergo propter hoc (after this, therefore because of this) logical fallacy. This is a president and an administration that chronically refuse to accept responsibility for the bad things that have happened on their watch--even things like the insurgency in Iraq that are directly attributable to its policies. Barring any specific evidence (provided, say, by Lebanese pro-democracy leaders)that Bush had anything in particular to do with Syria's setbacks in Lebanon, I see no particular reason to high-five him for being in office when they happened.
Well, there you have it! Reagan and Dubya: the luckiest guys ever. Luck, luck, luck, luck, luck! |
|
|
| More hijinks from Sweden |
[Feb. 25th, 2005|01:47 pm] |
If you think people were too quick to jump on Larry Summers' case for daring to talk about the shocking possibility that differences could exist between men and women -- wait 'til you get a load of Sweden.
You'd think they would know better, what with ABBA and all. Would ABBA (Anni-Frid, Benny, Bjorn, Agnetha) have achieved its success if it were AAAA or BBBB? Of course not.
Actually, come to think of it, the Beatles were BBBB. They were all right, but they were no ABBA. |
|
|
| A gentle reminder |
[Feb. 17th, 2005|08:26 pm] |
I try to put in a good word for InstaPunk now and then, but I rarely take the time to remind people about GlovesOff. So consider that rectified. It hasn't been updated in a while, but I think you'll find that the content has a certain timelessness about it.
And now, if you'll excuse me, I must get back to my lovely new thesaurus. |
|
|
| General update |
[Feb. 17th, 2005|01:09 pm] |
As usual, I'm busy with plenty of stuff, though at the moment (knock on wood) I'm making more progress than usual. Some brief updates:
* Some sources say that article about mandatory prostitution in Germany isn't true. So, never mind: Germany's doing just fine.
* I've been reading some of the Christian Reconstruction documents a kind commenter pointed me to. The jury is still out on how extensively stoning is advocated among this set, and how its advocates square it with Jesus' apparent distaste for it. I wonder... could Christian Reconstructionism be the big idea mentioned, but not revealed (at least not that I noticed), in Shuteye Town 1999's "Writing Ameria Down?" I kind of doubt it[1], though CR does offer an optimistic alternative to the "The Omen" school of Book-of-Revelation-interpreting (or Christian eschatology if you want to get fancy about it). Plus, "Bahama Bull" on the Boomer Bible website seems to suggest that the author of "Writing Ameria Down" fled to the Bahamas for a life of ease, which is also an interesting idea, though you would have to learn to speak Bahamian.
* I finally got a couple books that Winston Sith tipped me off to: Peter Novak's books on "division theory." Nifty stuff. I'm finished with one (aimed mainly at Christian audiences) and I've just started the other (aimed at audiences with an interest in near-death experiences and whatnot). I don't know if it's true or not, but it's aesthetically pleasing.
* Last night I picked up a nice thesaurus, "Roget's II: The Synonyming." Actually it's called "Roget's II: The NEW Thesaurus." Out of a large selection of thesauriates on display, I picked this one for its moderate price, its ease of heft, and the pretty blue spots on the edges of the pages. After one evening of use, I am quite satisfied with it. At the same time, I also picked up a copy of The Boomer Bible for a friend in Oklahoma who gave his away to a minister friend of his. At the checkout, the cashier pointed to it and said, "This is really funny." (Or something along those lines.) So there.
[1] Update: Perhaps I should expand on why I "kind of doubt it." Too bad for you that I don't have a good answer. From what I've read so far, reconstructionism -- at least the first phase of it -- wouldn't do much more than restore American society to, say, the dominant values of the mid-nineteenth century (with some notable exceptions, like no slavery [I assume reconstructionism isn't calling for that to be reinstituted -- at least I haven't seen a call for it yet]). Since I've proposed this idea before myself, when I suggested a copper-consuming virus or nanotechnology (which strictly speaking would only restore the technological level, but I imagine the values would follow), I can't find too much fault with that; whatever flaws mid-nineteenth-century America might have had, it was a far cry from living under the Taliban.
In fact, on the whole, "free thinkers" had it pretty good then -- and not only then, but really in most of the past several centuries, provided that they exercised a certain amount of discretion (which you could argue is completely contrary to the notion of being a "free thinker," but then, how many more hundreds of "art" exhibits of religious symbols [smeared with | immersed in | rendered by] human [fluids | secretions | by-products] do we really need? Honestly?).
So, I guess I've pretty much undermined my own point. On the other hand, the second phase of reconstruction doesn't sound quite so idyllic, but then, I doubt Americans would stand for it anyway. |
|
|
| Did I miss something? |
[Feb. 4th, 2005|09:57 pm] |
|
Okay, I'll admit I just skimmed through this article about "Christian Reconstructionists." But if I'm not mistaken, nowhere does the article address a question that leaped into my mind about 0.5 seconds after reading the "stoning" part. Namely, what about that time that Jesus saved the adultress from the guys who wanted to do the stoning? Remember, he had that clever line about how the guy who didn't have any sins could cast the first stone? I mean, come ON -- if you're going to advocate stoning from a Christian perspective, don't you pretty much have to address this issue up front? |
|
|
| Dimmy's Law |
[Jan. 25th, 2005|10:19 am] |
I've probably mentioned this some time before in the past, but it bears repeating. Most new laws are irritating enough just on general principles, but I loathe the current fashion of naming new laws after kids who met some awful Gashlycrumb Tinies fate. Sappy, heartstring-tugging names like "Binky's Law" are just lame, lame, lame. THE LAW OF THE LAND IS NOT AN E-Z-BAKE-OVEN COOKBOOK. If you want to pass a law, call it something vigorous like "The Pervert Ass-Whupping and Smackdown Act."
I bet even the French are laughing at us. THE FRENCH ARE LAUGHING AT US! |
|
|
| I Am Woman; Hear Me Roar |
[Jan. 24th, 2005|11:05 pm] |
|
Nancy Hopkins of Harvard has been bringing joy to the "blogosphere" for the past few days. It seems the President of Harvard gave a speech in which he suggested that there might actually be differences between men and women. This notion was so shocking and offensive to Hopkins that she went on a mad rampage, flinging fists and kicking academic asses left and right in an orgy of destruction. Oh, no, I stand corrected -- actually what she did was succumb to an attack of the vapors. Way to strike a blow against the Patriarchy, Hopkins! |
|
|
![[info]](http://p-stat.livejournal.com/img/userinfo.gif){kind=small}
dimpenumbra's journal