A Psalm to Reading
I don't want to hear the empty numbers,
To tell me literacy is in decline.
For the mind is dead that slumbers,
And to that death I would not resign.
Here is the decree: Information is free!
Though genocide is not the mission;
Casualties seem to come inevitably-
One cannot unmake that decision.
Not moving pictures, and not the glowing page
Is the book's predestined end.
But to be read through another age
So that each new generation can comprehend.
Creations live beyond those who created,
And our wits though quick and clever
Without exercizing become outdated,
As they cannot be sharpened with the pull of a lever.
In eddification's field of war,
I fear we've lost another battle,
But today's is not the final score-
And the end is not coming with a silent death rattle.
By rushing blindly to the aid of the meme
They failed to predict the obvious consequence.
They must now mourn the passing of a dream-
And observe the result of action with proper cognizance.
Memories of places now gone remind us,
We cannot turn back an unleashed tide.
But we can hold their nostaliga thus,
And going forth take their glory's side-
So that with them their dream fails to end.
Those to come will know reading's pleasure
And though this all ills does not mend;
It's better than such leisure disappearing forever.
Let us then go forth and read.
And though the bookstore now is dead
Let us in our children plant literacy's seed
So they have the wit to forge the road ahead.
Eulogy is in the style of Henry Wadsworth Longfellow's 'Psalm of Life'.
Mr. Paperback, a bookstore chain that was in operation for over fifty years is closing it's doors for good in the coming months. Unlike Borders Mr. Paperback wasn't driven out of business by poor business practices or bankruptcy but rather the decision to get out of what is turning into a failing business. It's become clear that the bookstore may be a obsolete model but the book itself it still alive and well.
Friday, March 23, 2012
Friday, March 16, 2012
Bad Punchline: iDear
If you aren't aware of the stereotypical 'Mainah' accent you have obviously never heard Tim Sample
speak. But I forgive you because not only do Mainers not really sound like Timmy Sample but actors in movies always make us sound like we're from 'Bawston' anyway. Despite the fact that Tim Sample grew up in my home town and was actually in the same class as my mother I sound absolutely nothing like he does in his skits. Timmy doesn't either, actually. He does it on purpose for the sake of humor. He is a comedian after all. But because of Timmy Sample there are many 'People From Away' (as we like to call non-Mainers) who believe that all Mainers drop their 'r's mostly at the end of common words so that car would sound like cah and lobster would be lobstah. There are other Mainah accent traits such as saying 'ayuh' (something which I admit I am guilty of) rather than yeah or yes as well as, ironically, adding 'r's in words where they do not belong. I generally try to speak like I understand the English language (or at least the bastardization of it we speak here in America) so the Mainah accent frequently makes me cringe. The part that bothers me the most is when 'r's are added to words where they don't belong. The worst and most common r-adding offense is saying you have an 'idear' rather than an 'idea'. The next time I hear someone say 'idear' I intend to say this: "Oh, I think I've heard of the iDear. It's some kind of new Apple product, right? Like a robotic spouse?"
speak. But I forgive you because not only do Mainers not really sound like Timmy Sample but actors in movies always make us sound like we're from 'Bawston' anyway. Despite the fact that Tim Sample grew up in my home town and was actually in the same class as my mother I sound absolutely nothing like he does in his skits. Timmy doesn't either, actually. He does it on purpose for the sake of humor. He is a comedian after all. But because of Timmy Sample there are many 'People From Away' (as we like to call non-Mainers) who believe that all Mainers drop their 'r's mostly at the end of common words so that car would sound like cah and lobster would be lobstah. There are other Mainah accent traits such as saying 'ayuh' (something which I admit I am guilty of) rather than yeah or yes as well as, ironically, adding 'r's in words where they do not belong. I generally try to speak like I understand the English language (or at least the bastardization of it we speak here in America) so the Mainah accent frequently makes me cringe. The part that bothers me the most is when 'r's are added to words where they don't belong. The worst and most common r-adding offense is saying you have an 'idear' rather than an 'idea'. The next time I hear someone say 'idear' I intend to say this: "Oh, I think I've heard of the iDear. It's some kind of new Apple product, right? Like a robotic spouse?"
Saturday, March 10, 2012
Battery of Humor
I recently rebooted my laptop after it demanded I install software updates and discovered that there was a funny icon partially covering the battery charge indicator. When I hovered over it there was a message reading: "Consider replacing your battery." When I opened the battery management there was a statement: "There is a problem with your battery, so your computer might shut down suddenly." I felt a bit of chagrin at the fact that I've only had the laptop for about a year and a half now and the battery is already crapping out. So I decided to see how absurdly-priced a replacement would be. If I purchased a replacement battery from Toshiba they would charge me $129.99 plus shipping. Considering that when I purchased my laptop
I paid $500.00 including shipping at my friend's wholesaler price (on a laptop you'd find in a retail store for probably $800.00 or more and on the Toshiba website for $569.99 plus shipping) I can't say as I'm particularly inclined to buy a new battery for 26% of what I paid for the whole computer. So I punched the model number of the battery into Google and lo and behold it turns out there are many compatible batteries available for significantly less than $129.99. After considering the price and ratings of a few batteries I chose one
that would cost me $38.86 including shipping had excellent reviews from all the buyers.
None of that was the humorous part, though. The humorous part was what else the battery had printed on the side that's hidden against the computer along with the battery code. "Do not disassemble nor alter Battery Pack. Do not put into fire nor make it shorted. Do not charge with the method other than that specified. It will cause fire, explosion or overheat if not conformed." I'm not actually completely sure what they are warning me not to do or why they would think that printing it in a place where I would not normally ever see it is going to be helpful in any way. I just better hope and pray that I'm 'conformed', I guess.
I paid $500.00 including shipping at my friend's wholesaler price (on a laptop you'd find in a retail store for probably $800.00 or more and on the Toshiba website for $569.99 plus shipping) I can't say as I'm particularly inclined to buy a new battery for 26% of what I paid for the whole computer. So I punched the model number of the battery into Google and lo and behold it turns out there are many compatible batteries available for significantly less than $129.99. After considering the price and ratings of a few batteries I chose one that would cost me $38.86 including shipping had excellent reviews from all the buyers.None of that was the humorous part, though. The humorous part was what else the battery had printed on the side that's hidden against the computer along with the battery code. "Do not disassemble nor alter Battery Pack. Do not put into fire nor make it shorted. Do not charge with the method other than that specified. It will cause fire, explosion or overheat if not conformed." I'm not actually completely sure what they are warning me not to do or why they would think that printing it in a place where I would not normally ever see it is going to be helpful in any way. I just better hope and pray that I'm 'conformed', I guess.
Friday, March 9, 2012
Bad Punchline: Nah, we're all lesbians anyway.
Of course the hetero-curious argument against the 'how do you know' cliche in my 'Objectivity' post a few weeks ago is one way to mess with people's heads but I've come up with a better one. How can you argue about sexuality at all when every person on earth is a lesbian? I feel there could be some spluttering and confusion as a natural reaction to this. You must simply and very calmly explain to them the way that human sex chromosomes work. Some people are mutants and end up with too many or too few sex chromosomes (just like they can end up with three sets of other chromosomes as with Down Syndrome). People who have 57 XXY are sterile 'males' with some 'female' characteristics and people with 57 XYY are so-called 'super males' and are sterile as well as purported to be especially aggressive and violent. People who have 55 X are 'female' and with modern technology can have children that genetically belong to them. Zygotes with the misfortune of getting the 55 Y mutation never become viable fetuses because they cannot. Humans require at least one X chromosome to live. The human default is to become female. It is the presence of a Y chromosome that causes a fetus to display 'male' characteristics instead but as a Y chromosome is not necessary for life and the human default form is female really we're all women even those of us with our genitals on the outside. And if every person on earth is female then every person on earth (barring anyone who is asexual) is a lesbian. If everyone's a lesbian than sexuality becomes a moot point. So, I think the next time somebody feels like debating sexuality in terms of religion I'll dismissively say: "Nah, we're all lesbians anyway."
Monday, February 27, 2012
Actually, I think you're being unconstitutional.
I just don't get it. What is their motivation? Do they just want to make him look bad because they don't like him? Or are they really so deluded they think that filing suit is going to help in any way? What do they hope to achieve? I just don't get it. Why is it that seven Republican state Attorney Generals have filed suit against the President of the United States? I've been thinking about it since I saw an article in the paper yesterday on the topic. I still don't get it.
Ostensibly the suit is because the government had made it so that religious companies would be required to pay for health care coverage for contraceptives which is felt to be unconstitutional because 'it violates the first amendment'. However, that position was already rescinded and altered so that it would be not the religious affiliated companies themselves that had to pay for the contraceptive coverage but the insurance providers that would have to pay. Then there is the fact that it was not just the President that was responsible for the legal requirement. I know this without bothering to look it up for the simple fact that the President is not a soveriegn and the system of checks and balances that were designed into our government generally prevent him from doing anything without the approval of literally dozens if not hundreds of other people.
Ignoring the fact that if there is blame to be placed it doesn't belong to just one person there are still a lot of problems with their stated goal. Currently the legal requirement is that the insurance providers of religious companies have to pay for contraceptives for employees. It is not the company itself that has to pay it. A religious company might be indirectly paying for it in that they have to pay premiums in order to retain the insurance and some of their premium might go toward the contraceptives- but that is no different than it was before. Unless a religious company were to use a insurance provider that did not cover any sort of contraceptive device (of which there are none, to my knowledge) then their premiums might always have indirectly gone to cover contraceptives for a person covered by that insurance provider that worked at a non-religious company. The position currently is arguably no different than it was in that situation- as far as the company ought to be concerned, at least.
I would even go so far as to say that the original legal requirement (the one that was rescinded) ought to be considered constitutional. Because while it would force a religious company to pay for contraceptives for the employees that might want them it was neither forcing the employers (or employees) to use them nor saying that their ideology was invalid in any way. The employers and employees still retained the right to practice their religion in whatever manner they feel is morally fit. The employers could choose not to use contraceptives if that was their moral choice and the employees could use them if that was their moral choice.
I'll go farther still and say that allowing religious companies the right to deny their employees medical coverage for contraceptives is itself unconstitutional. You may feel morally outraged by the preceding statement and you may have just said or thought something along the lines of: "But freedom of religion is the first amendment." That is precisely it, in fact. A religious company that refused to provide coverage for contraceptives on the basis of 'freedom of religion' would be violating the right to freedom of religion for the person who wanted the contraceptives because the company would be imposing their own religious beliefs that contraceptives are bad on the employee. You may feel there is a inherent conflict there because you either protect the rights of the employee or you protect the rights of the company. I'm pretty sure, though, that there's something in the constitution about it being by and for the people and I don't recall anything about the rights of corporations. The people that own the company, of course, are still allowed to practice their religion as they choose but extending that right to a company would be tantamount to allowing that company to dictate the religious practices of its employees.
So, since the state Attorney Generals really don't have a foot to stand on or much of a chance to win anything from the President I can only assume they're (as Republicans) trying to make the President look bad. That in and of itself is not a bad political move. Given that in recent months the economy and unemployment rate has been improving and the lowering of public opinion about the strongest Republican Presidential cantidate along with the American public's propensity to reelect Presidents the Republicans may feel pressured to help their position. And what better way to help their position than make the President look bad? Unless their lack of forthought backfires, of course. I hope it does. But then I also think that WWIII might not be bad bad solution to our economic troubles (that's a whole other story, though). Regardless, the response I really want to give to the Attorney Generals filing suit against the President is this: "Actually, I think you're being unconstitutional."
Ostensibly the suit is because the government had made it so that religious companies would be required to pay for health care coverage for contraceptives which is felt to be unconstitutional because 'it violates the first amendment'. However, that position was already rescinded and altered so that it would be not the religious affiliated companies themselves that had to pay for the contraceptive coverage but the insurance providers that would have to pay. Then there is the fact that it was not just the President that was responsible for the legal requirement. I know this without bothering to look it up for the simple fact that the President is not a soveriegn and the system of checks and balances that were designed into our government generally prevent him from doing anything without the approval of literally dozens if not hundreds of other people.
Ignoring the fact that if there is blame to be placed it doesn't belong to just one person there are still a lot of problems with their stated goal. Currently the legal requirement is that the insurance providers of religious companies have to pay for contraceptives for employees. It is not the company itself that has to pay it. A religious company might be indirectly paying for it in that they have to pay premiums in order to retain the insurance and some of their premium might go toward the contraceptives- but that is no different than it was before. Unless a religious company were to use a insurance provider that did not cover any sort of contraceptive device (of which there are none, to my knowledge) then their premiums might always have indirectly gone to cover contraceptives for a person covered by that insurance provider that worked at a non-religious company. The position currently is arguably no different than it was in that situation- as far as the company ought to be concerned, at least.
I would even go so far as to say that the original legal requirement (the one that was rescinded) ought to be considered constitutional. Because while it would force a religious company to pay for contraceptives for the employees that might want them it was neither forcing the employers (or employees) to use them nor saying that their ideology was invalid in any way. The employers and employees still retained the right to practice their religion in whatever manner they feel is morally fit. The employers could choose not to use contraceptives if that was their moral choice and the employees could use them if that was their moral choice.
I'll go farther still and say that allowing religious companies the right to deny their employees medical coverage for contraceptives is itself unconstitutional. You may feel morally outraged by the preceding statement and you may have just said or thought something along the lines of: "But freedom of religion is the first amendment." That is precisely it, in fact. A religious company that refused to provide coverage for contraceptives on the basis of 'freedom of religion' would be violating the right to freedom of religion for the person who wanted the contraceptives because the company would be imposing their own religious beliefs that contraceptives are bad on the employee. You may feel there is a inherent conflict there because you either protect the rights of the employee or you protect the rights of the company. I'm pretty sure, though, that there's something in the constitution about it being by and for the people and I don't recall anything about the rights of corporations. The people that own the company, of course, are still allowed to practice their religion as they choose but extending that right to a company would be tantamount to allowing that company to dictate the religious practices of its employees.
So, since the state Attorney Generals really don't have a foot to stand on or much of a chance to win anything from the President I can only assume they're (as Republicans) trying to make the President look bad. That in and of itself is not a bad political move. Given that in recent months the economy and unemployment rate has been improving and the lowering of public opinion about the strongest Republican Presidential cantidate along with the American public's propensity to reelect Presidents the Republicans may feel pressured to help their position. And what better way to help their position than make the President look bad? Unless their lack of forthought backfires, of course. I hope it does. But then I also think that WWIII might not be bad bad solution to our economic troubles (that's a whole other story, though). Regardless, the response I really want to give to the Attorney Generals filing suit against the President is this: "Actually, I think you're being unconstitutional."
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)