Well, first off the last few weeks I've been working on my GTD tool, Frictionless.
Mostly though work has just been busy and stressful or I've been traveling.
February 2006 Archives
A friend of mine sent me a link to this piece of dreck:
It's stuff like this that makes me hate the left.
sigh
In 1920, Woodrow Wilson became the first President to leave the US during his term of office when he got on a ship to travel to Yalta to negotiate with Lloyd George and Clemenceau to negotiate the end of WWI. When he arrived he was deathly ill. As a consequence, Lloyd George and Clemenceau were able to easily frustrate Wilson's attempt to implement his 14 points: they conducted most of the negotiations in French, which Wilson didn't speak.
Knowing what we know now, what probably what happened is that either Wilson had a stroke (there was some evidence of personality change), or some waiter didn't wash his hands before serving the President of the United States his tuna sandwich. Of the two, I prefer the latter theory, mostly because of the irony. “lávese las manos”
The end result of that “peace conference” was the breakup of the Ottoman empire, and the creation of what we now call “the Middle East”. That peace treaty was so awful that Congress refused to ratify it; presumably we are still at war with the Kaiser.
My story is true. This film is not. The idiot branch of the left wants to believe that there was this giant conspiracy between all these various factions of the US Political machine? That Clinton and Bush worked together somehow to create 9/11?
Give me a fucking break. How about if I just believe that the government is mostly incompetent? That's a much simpler theory, and I see evidence of that every day. Never put down to evil what you can put down to incompetence; incompetence is much more common.
Recently, I had to debunk similar nonsense. In that case, I'm supposed to trust the mechanical engineering expertise of a Professor of Theology over well, actual mechanical engineers.
It's like talking to Chomskyites. College students read Noam Chomsky, a professor of linguistics, and take his historical pronouncements as gospel.
Look, by all means read Chomsky, Manufacturing Consent as an analysis of the media and how the government manipulates it is brilliant. As a professor of linguistics, Chomsky is unparalleled. But take his history with a grain of salt. Go read his sources if you want the true history of what's going on, and read the historians that don't agree with his sources as well. If historians don't always agree about history, don't take Chomsky's word for anything: he's trying to prove a point, so he discards anything that conflicts with his thesis. Manufacturing Consent is itself a piece of the propaganda it purports to analyze.
Propaganda is not reality though. The great theme of America has not been the creation of an empire. We frankly don't want or need an empire. The great goal of American foreign policy has actually been the promotion of democracy worldwide. Sure, there have been moments where we've moved against that grain: in wartime, cold or hot, short-term tactics may triumph over long term strategy. The triumph of America on the world stage is not due to any particular magic other then the fact that Americans work pretty hard, and we stayed out of WWI and WWII until the last possible moment. It's really as simple as that; realistically before the end of WWII, America was a non-entity on the world stage. We didn't create colonialism. Perhaps we propped it up a bit after 1945 to prevent a complete power vacuum across most of the world, but only just.
But let's look back on the history since 1945 shall we?
- We defeated Germany and Japan in WWII, neither of them easy tasks.
- We defeated Communism in a long, “Cold” War.
- We've been successfully bringing Eastern European countries over to democratic ideals. (Not completely done yet! Look at Belorussia)
- We've been successfully bringing more and more countries over to democracy. (Check out Freedom House for details.
You know, that's not such a bad record. Even the Vietnamese now thank us for keeping the Chinese out of their country...
But according to the idiot left, we're all evil, warmongering greedy assholes bent on stealing the worlds resources. Well guys, that's called mechantilism, and it was debunked in 1776 (ironic date that) when Adam Smith founded modern economics, with the publication of the Wealth of Nations. If we want the oil of the Middle East, all we have to do is buy it. What we actually want is peace in the Middle East, and that's not such a bad goal is it?
Well, the most romantic movie ever is now out on DVD. Naturally, I’m talking about the movie Mr. and Mrs. Smith. You’re not sure that a movie about two assassins who find out five or six years into their marriage that their spouse is also an assassin is romantic? Because they spend about half the movie trying to kill each other? Because after trying to shoot each other, blow each other up, and drop elevators on one another they end up in a martial arts/gun battle which culminates in their house blowing up?
I don’t see why you should hold that against the movie.
My previous “most romantic movie ever” was a tie between two John Wayne and Maureen O’Hara movies: The Quiet Man and McLintock. In The Quiet Man, right after getting married John Wayne and Maureen O’Hara have this huge fight. This results in her telling him that she’ll “clean the house, and keep the land”, but that she won’t have sex with him until he beats up her brother. The climatic finish of the movie begins with him dragging her 5 miles on foot, “just a good stretch of the legs”, back to her brother’s house after she tries to leave him. John Wayne throws her at her brother’s feet and tells the brother that if he doesn’t cough up the dowry, he can have his sister back.
The brother coughs up the dowry, and a sucker punch. Just when you think a fist fight is about to break out, the fist fight you’ve been waiting for the whole movie, Maureen O’Hara interrupts to tell John Wayne that “supper will be waitin’ for ya” and walks off as proud as can be. Later, she welcomes both husband and brother home for supper when they come in drunk as well, Irishmen who’ve just had a fist fight.
They don’t make movies like that any more.
In McLintock, Maureen O’Hara and John Wayne bicker through the entire movie plus he drinks a lot. In that climatic finish, he chases her through the entire town while everyone looks on and cheers. When he catches her, he gives her a good spanking, with a rather scary looking shovel provided by her daughter and prospective son-in-law.
They don’t make movies like that either.
In case you haven’t guessed, not only am I part Irish, but I’m married to a woman who’s even more Irish then I am. I’ve made a careful study of all those movies that other people find “romantic” and I’ve discovered two things:
One, they’re right about 9 1/2 Weeks. Though come to think of it, there’s spanking in that movie too. Quite a bit actually. Hmmm…. And I wouldn’t call it romantic, per se. Rather, watching it with someone you love is romantic, but the movie isn’t really romantic, they break up at the end. (I know, half of you have never gotten all the way through to the end of the movie when you’ve watched it together. Well, sorry to burst your bubble but that’s what happens.)
Two, the rest of you must be total pansies. Or none of you are Irish, which is the same thing really.
I don’t think its just the Irish who think that fighting is part of love, romance and marriage. I mean what idiot in Hollywood came up with this idea that love and romance is all sweetness and light? That’s got to be the biggest load of well-meaning-but-ultimately-stupid-nonsense I’ve ever heard. I have news for you all: If you agree with your loved one 100% of the time, you’re with the wrong person; you married yourself.
I really think Hollywood is doing our generation a disservice by portraying all married couples as never fighting. Think back on every sitcom or movie you’ve seen in the last 20 years. Did any of those people ever have one of those top-of-your-lungs, break-the-dishes, scare-the-pets, duck-because-you-have-to kind of fights that you’ve had with your loved one? No, right?
I’ve had several friends of mine tell me that they were surprised to find out that me and my wife fought. Well of course we fight. We’re married. Fights and power struggles are as much a part of being married as rings.
Some people have told me that they don’t like these movies because they feel John Wayne “dominates” Maureen O’Hara. Now granted, these movies seem to portray what we’ve come to call a “traditional” relationship where the man is supposed to be the “head of the household”, and this is supposedly demeaning to women. Though if you think that Maureen O’Hara was ever dominated by John Wayne in a movie, you must have gone to the bathroom during the good parts.
Besides, my wife tells me she and I have a traditional relationship, and if you think that means I’m charge, well, you’re an idiot. I may be the “head” of the household, but she’s definitely the “heart”, and what that really means is that I’m in charge of certain things, things I happen to be good at, and she’s in charge of other things, things she’s good at. It’s really all about partnership, and covering your partner’s weaknesses with your strengths. All the people I know in “traditional relationships” have divided up responsibilities that way; and the division between “head” and “heart” is different for each of them. To quote my favorite feminist Camile Paglia: “sex is complicated”. The people who talk the most about “modern” vs. “traditional” relationships all seem to be single. All the married people I know don’t care, they just wish it was the other persons job to do the dishes.
McLintock is romantic because even though these two people are having a bad moment in their marriage, you also see how much they’ve accomplished as a couple. As John Wayne puts it: “All that growin’ together”. You know that the marriage of two people who have been through as much as they have will survive. The Quiet Man isn’t really about the fist fight, its about two people from very different cultures learning to communicate their needs. Mr. and Mrs. Smith is really about being honest with your spouse and about working together as a couple on the challenges of life. Granted most of us don’t have to fight off 50 ninjas, but think of them as 50 bill collectors and I think it applies to everyone. What makes these movies romantic to my way of thinking is that they are all about couples who have problems, and overcome them. That’s true romance. Or at least Irish Romance.
So this Valentine’s Day, think back on a few fights you’ve had with your loved one, and smile.
My wife owes me about two movies where guys run around and blow shit up for making me sit through that piece of crap.
First off, they're not cowboys, they're SHEEPHERDERS.
Yep, all that crap you read about how “cutting edge” it is to portray “gay cowboys”.
They're sheepherders, dammit. Gay sheepherders isn't exactly news. Only you city folks could get shepherds and cowboys confused.
Second, the whole “getting together” thing was a complete sandbag. One minute they're complaining about being sick of beans, the next minute they're having anal sex (for about 10 seconds). So I was totally unconvinced about their relationship then, because as far as you can tell from the rest of the movie their relationship consists of being miserable together. Except for a couple of kisses, they have no happy moments together...
Finally, watching the movie is like being bludgeoned over the head repeatedly. There is literally no moment after they get together where the filmmaker is not trying to make some “point”. Any point made has to be made as subtly as a boot to the head.
Gah.
Wife liked it.
Gah.
Did I mention that one of the characters was named Penis?
Like most of us, I'm sick of the war.
I feel like a kid in a long car trip. “Are we there yet?” Since 1920, the US has been trying to stabilize the Middle East. If Woodrow Wilson had been successful then in creating a democratic Middle East we would be facing a very different world today. Unfortunately, he was sick (its possible he had a stroke, this was long before MRIs and CAT scans); the French and British took advantage, and we're in the mess we're in today.
Unlike our news media who seem unable to see even last week, my view of the War in Iraq tries to gp at least back to 1920 when the Middle East was effectively created because the British and French wanted to play games there. This problem is 86 years old now. The solution is, and always has been for the people of the region to control their own destiny.
Logically, I wouldn't expect a problem 86 years in the making to go away overnight.
But I don't care. I want this thing over dammit. Screw logic.
Of course, what I want and what reality provides are two different things. For that matter, reality and the coverage of the war are two different things. That's why I started reading blogs and started blogging. I'm trying to get the perspective the major media aren't giving me. Since my job basically involves analyzing financial data, my contribution to all this is looking at the numbers.
Last month, I got a lot of flack for saying December was better then November. Well friends, it's all about perspective. The news media doesn't give us any perspective. Its hard to believe Iraq is getting better when you see 130 people died on the news. I realize that. But 130 people dying on a single day doesn't really mean anything without perspective.
Its harder for the insurgents to kill 130 people then it is to kill 10 or 20. It's more newsworthy for them, but if that attack means that they weren't able to carry out 19 smaller attacks that killed 10-20 people, they're doing worse. Larger attacks but happening more rarely, and in more obscure places can actually be good news. Larger attacks also piss off more of the populace because more of the “innocent” are killed, which ends up meaning more tips to the police and such.
In other words, it takes a month for me to know what is happening in a month, because from looking at the data, that's how long it takes for things to settle out. Figuring out how the war is going takes multiple months, as well as conversing with actual witnesses.
So for those who feel I'm “lying with statistics”, well, that's what the media does by denying you perspective. I'm trying to provide that perspective by asking the simple question: “Was Iraq better or worse last month?”
So bottom line, December was better then November. Was January better then December? Well, lets see. As for February, ask me in March.
Continue reading Are we there yet?.
