Thursday, January 29, 2009 |
 |
Where's the Airsickness Bag? |
 |
By Greg Perkins @ 12:01 AM   
Really, I was ready to let it go and move on. But then this floated by in one of those endlessly-forwarded emails that friends and family pass around. What's so revolting is the utter inversion of justice it represents in the mainstream treatment of the accident.
God is routinely given credit and thanked for saving those people; but notice that He's not similarly given "credit" for needlessly killing those geese, destroying that plane, endangering and distressing the people involved, and soaking up lots of resources to deal with it all. Nor is He reflexively given such "credit" for all the deaths that aren't averted in other plane mishaps.
Such psychoses aside, the real problem I have with this is that it dilutes and distracts from the recognition genuinely earned by the heroes involved!
- The pilot trained long and hard to be able to fly planes of various kinds, and to identify and execute just such a lifesaving maneuver. Then, in the moment it was needed and under tremendous stresses, he kept his head and did an absolutely brilliant job.
- The crew trained as well in managing such a process -- and when their moment came they likewise kept their heads and executed brilliantly.
- Engineers labored long and hard to design a plane that didn't just fly, but which would have ever better chances in all sorts of rare and strange circumstances, working to reduce the odds and impact of the unexpected. The result is a craft that could withstand this sort of water landing and float long enough to get those people out.
- People on the ground sprang into action to scoop up the passengers and contain the danger.
- And on and on. How about the experts who will analyze what happened and use it to make people a little safer in the future?
These folks deserve all of the credit and admiration and thanks, and it's an absolute injustice that the mainstream reaction would take even the tiniest sliver of their due and pretend it was earned by someone or something else.Labels: Culture, Religion, WTF
| | |  E-mail Greg Perkins PermaLink ( )  Comments (New Page) |
|
| |
Subscribe to NoodleFood Blog Posts  via Feed Reader  via E-mail
Subscribe to NoodleCast Podcasts  M4A via iTunes (MP3) via Feed Reader via E-mail
|
|
Thursday, January 22, 2009 |
|
Hot Damn! |
|
By Diana Hsieh @ 12:01 AM
[Originally posted to Politics without God.]
Eugene Volokh reports that South Carolina state senator Robert Ford -- a Democrat -- proposes a bill against "dirty" language, including the following provisions:
It is unlawful for a person in a public forum or place of public accommodation wilfully and knowingly to publish orally or in writing, exhibit, or otherwise make available material containing words, language, or actions of a profane, vulgar, lewd, lascivious, or indecent nature. And:
It is unlawful for a person to disseminate profanity to a minor if he wilfully and knowingly publishes orally or in writing, exhibits, or otherwise makes available material containing words, language, or actions of profane, vulgar, lewd, lascivious, or indecent nature. Violating either provision would be a felony -- with the potential for five years in prison: "a person who violates [either provision] is guilty of a felony and, upon conviction, must be fined not more than five thousand dollars or imprisoned not more than five years, or both."
Ah well, at least the Bible would be banned along with Atlas Shrugged -- and almost everything else, including swearing within earshot of your 17-year-old kid.
The bill is currently in committee. While I'm sure it won't go anywhere, the fact that such legislation could even be proposed in 21st century America is mind-boggling.Labels: Law, Politics, WTF
| | | E-mail Diana Hsieh PermaLink () Comments (New Page) |
|
| |
Subscribe to NoodleFood Blog Posts via Feed Reader via E-mail
Subscribe to NoodleCast Podcasts M4A via iTunes (MP3) via Feed Reader via E-mail
|
|
Friday, December 05, 2008 |
|
Stop Drinking Responsibly, Adults! You Might Corrupt the Binge-Drinking Children! |
|
By Diana Hsieh @ 2:49 PM
Wow, this story is undoubtedly the worst kind of false-alarmist local television news:
Despite years of fighting their "party school" reputation, the University of Colorado hosts regular drinking events for staff, students and visitors, a CALL7 hidden-camera investigation found.
Over several days, CALL7 investigators visited the Boulder campus, finding drinking events that appear to have little to do with enhancing either research or education at CU. [Scary, bad, scary... the story continues...]
Here's what the story is actually talking about: After departmental colloquia and other scholarly events, alcoholic beverages are sometimes served to and consumed by the faculty, graduate students, and visitors in moderation to facilitate friendly conversation. In other words, the legal grown-ups in an academic department awkwardly chat over a glass of bad wine in a plastic cup after a somewhat boring lecture. Notably, such alcohol cannot be purchased with state funds; it can only be purchased with money from donors who must sign a form saying that they understand that the money might be used to purchase alcohol.
According to 7News reporters, Arthur Kane and Tony Kovaleski, such events are "parties" of the same sort that make CU Boulder known as a "party school." Somehow, departments are setting a bad example for the many CU Boulder undergraduates who regularly drink themselves into a blackout, rub genitals to persons unknown to them, and fall asleep in their own vomit.
In other words, responsible drinking by legal adults is a serious problem at CU Boulder that must be stamped out immediately, lest underage binge drinkers get the wrong idea.
Um, okay.Labels: Academia, WTF
| | | E-mail Diana Hsieh PermaLink () Comments (New Page) |
|
| |
Subscribe to NoodleFood Blog Posts via Feed Reader via E-mail
Subscribe to NoodleCast Podcasts M4A via iTunes (MP3) via Feed Reader via E-mail
|
|
|
A Taste of Libertarianism |
|
By Greg Perkins @ 12:01 AM
Well, here's a little integration that caught my google-alerted eye: "John Galt Republican."
A libertarian columnist at nolanchart.com coined the term for himself, and now lays it out for the rest of us:
I submit, to a candid world, my explicit definition of what it means to be a 'John Galt Republican'. And since Ayn Rand was agnostic with regards to political parties during her life, I've also realized that you can prefix your own political party affiliation with 'John Galt', if you agree with the items of definition, below. These three of the 14(!) elements pretty much say it all:
1) You've read one or more of Ayn Rand's works, and by doing so, your world views have either been changed or strengthened to a positive degree.
5) You do not care to talk about Ayn Rand's (or anyone else's) metaphysical views.
13) OPTIONAL: You have an affinity for laissez faire capitalism. Good grief, what a mess. Capitalism as optional?? And in a political context, no less?
Rand/Galt advocates an integrated system of philosophy -- each element is essential and intertwined with the rest. As I commented there,
This part of a candid world can only say: Rand understood that her politics flowed from her metaphysics, and she showed how capitalism was its only valid expression. I know who John Galt is, and he would have nothing to do with the vast majority of those meeting this confused "definition." What's the point of adding that Galt qualifier if it doesn't really mean anything? Sheesh.Labels: Libertarianism, Politics, WTF
| | | E-mail Greg Perkins PermaLink () Comments (New Page) |
|
| |
Subscribe to NoodleFood Blog Posts via Feed Reader via E-mail
Subscribe to NoodleCast Podcasts M4A via iTunes (MP3) via Feed Reader via E-mail
|
|
Tuesday, November 25, 2008 |
|
Darwin Award Near Miss |
|
By Diana Hsieh @ 4:43 PM
Wow:
BEIJING (AP) -- A college student in southern China was bitten by a panda after he broke into the bear's enclosure hoping to get a hug, state media and a park employee said Saturday. The student was visiting Qixing Park with classmates on Friday when he jumped the 6.5-foot (2-meter) high fence around the panda's habitat, said the park employee, who refused to give his name. ... He said the student was bitten on the arms and legs. ...
The student was pale as he was taken away by medics but appeared clearheaded, he said. "Yang Yang was so cute, and I just wanted to cuddle him. I didn't expect he would attack," the 20-year-old student, surnamed Liu, said in a local hospital, according to the official Xinhua News Agency. Didn't anyone ever tell this kid that pandas are bears?!? Or did he just think that his warm and fuzzy feelings would protect him from the tooth and claw of a dangerous wild beast? The mind boggles.
(Via The Agitator.)Labels: Animals, WTF
| | | E-mail Diana Hsieh PermaLink () Comments (New Page) |
|
| |
Subscribe to NoodleFood Blog Posts via Feed Reader via E-mail
Subscribe to NoodleCast Podcasts M4A via iTunes (MP3) via Feed Reader via E-mail
|
|
Wednesday, September 10, 2008 |
|
Another Objectivist at Ford Hall Forum? |
|
By Greg Perkins @ 1:01 AM
The Ford Hall Forum is a longstanding and prestigious platform for speakers with interesting things to say (like Objectivists Ayn Rand, Leonard Peikoff, and Yaron Brook). The Forum sent out an announcement that Jimmy (Jimbo) Wales of Wikipedia fame will be speaking on September 11 in Boston. This caught my eye, not only because I fondly remember Jimbo from Objectivisty circles many years back, but also because it advertises that he is going to talk about how "Objectivist philosophy guides his vision":
Free Speech, Free Minds, Free Markets: Competition and Collaboration
Across the globe we are building, editing, and contributing to a growing body of knowledge and tools at everyone's fingertips. Volunteers in leaderless organizations contribute to online initiatives and articles. Software developers spend their free time collaborating with complete strangers. Amazingly, these efforts are creating products of extraordinary quality, sometimes better than that of large for-profit organizations. Why do we do it? Why does it work? Join us tonight as Wikipedia founder Jimmy Wales joins journalist Christopher Lydon to address these questions, where "web 2.0" will take us next, and how Objectivist philosophy guides his vision. I would love to ask some questions about how Objectivism guides his vision, but I can't be there. Maybe someone in the NoodleCaboodle could go and ask questions for us and report back! Here are the ones I am curious to hear addressed:
- You refer to Wikipedia as a way to give people free access to the sum of all human knowledge. Yet Wikipedia doesn't even aim to express what is true—it is focused on documenting what people believe, carefully including all the patently silly and downright vicious things people think. That is, Wikipedia strives for neutrality rather than objectivity with regard to the truth of what is claimed. Wouldn't Objectivism inspire you to characterize Wikipedia more accurately as a vast snapshot of what people currently think, good and bad?
- When you ask for contributions to Wikipedia, you seem to frame or at least decorate the appeal in altruistic terms. How does that square with the ethical egoism of Objectivism, which flatly rejects altruism as immoral?
- In your appeal for contributions, you wrote that "This is a radical strike at the heart of an increasingly shallow, proprietary and anti-intellectual culture. ... I hope [my daughter] will grow up in a world where culture is free, not proprietary... We're already taking back the Internet. With your help, we can take back the world." (Emphasis added.) Just what is bad about being proprietary? Wouldn't an Objectivist be supportive of the creator who chooses to profit from the sale of his work, rather than fight against him? And "taking back" seems to imply that something was unjustly taken. The Internet is physically composed of private property (computers, connections) and wasn't taken from you; the information communicated using it wasn't taken from you, either. Wouldn't Objectivism inspire clarifying and reinforcing the intellectual and physical property rights involved—including how they recognize and foster a deep harmony of interests—rather than this talk of "taking back" something that wasn't taken in the first place?
- You recently announced your launch of a Green Wiki. That site explains, "In light of the climate crisis and other ecological challenges increasingly facing us," that it hopes to serve the "people who want to inform themselves and live in a more sustainable way," because "the threats to our environment are real and that they require action." It will be "written from a green point of view," and will focus on detailing such helpful actions as "How to reduce your carbon footprint." How can this initiative of yours be informed by Objectivism, which repudiates the Environmentalist movement as epistemologically, morally, and politically corrupt?
Obviously, I don't understand how Jimbo's actions can be reconciled with Objectivist principles, so I'm surprised to hear that he thinks the philosophy guides his vision. It would be great to see how he addresses this.Labels: Objectivism, Technology, WTF
| | | E-mail Greg Perkins PermaLink () Comments (New Page) |
|
| |
Subscribe to NoodleFood Blog Posts via Feed Reader via E-mail
Subscribe to NoodleCast Podcasts M4A via iTunes (MP3) via Feed Reader via E-mail
|
|
Wednesday, August 20, 2008 |
|
Band-Aids as Fashion Accessories |
|
By Diana Hsieh @ 1:38 PM
Honestly, I just don't know what to say about this supposed fashion trend, other than WTF?!?
When Nicholas James Brown prepares to go out for cocktails at the Tribeca Grand or to a clambake in the Hamptons, he sticks on a few boldly patterned Band-Aids by the Brazilian fashion designer Alexandre Herchcovitch.
To Mr. Brown, 24, who works at Esquire magazine in New York, the colorful strips are an important accessory, and he's careful to coordinate them with his Kris Van Assche sweater or his Balenciaga bag. He generally wears one on his left hand or arm and balances it out with two or three on his right leg.
He doesn't put them on his face because, he said, "I don't want people thinking, 'What happened?'" And if anyone does ask what he's done to himself to need all of those bandages? "I'll lie and say, 'I have a cut,' " he said.
For most everyone over the age of 5, it's unfathomable to use a bandage purely as body art. But since the adhesive strip has been upgraded by designers like Mr. Herchcovitch or studded with Swarovski crystals, some adults have begun to view it as they would a bracelet or spray tan, as adornment. ... Has the world gone mad?!?Labels: WTF
| | | E-mail Diana Hsieh PermaLink () Comments (New Page) |
|
| |
Subscribe to NoodleFood Blog Posts via Feed Reader via E-mail
Subscribe to NoodleCast Podcasts M4A via iTunes (MP3) via Feed Reader via E-mail
|
|
Monday, July 07, 2008 |
|
UNwanted Movie |
|
By Greg Perkins @ 3:25 PM
 We went to see the new Angelina Jolie flick, Wanted, the other night. Having watched the trailers, and noting that 75% or so of 150+ reviews were coming out positive, our expectation was of basically mindless summer action in a slick package.
We got all that: the production values were excellent, and the acting was just fine -- most of all, the action sequences were extremely stylish and fantastically unrealistic, though a bit over the top on gore at times. All of this is what you would expect. It's the "message" that is so horrid.
*** MILD SPOILAGE ALERT ***
The movie started out pretty quirky and random, and I was fine with cutting it slack even while Tammy was alternately squirming with boredom and revulsion at gory stuff as we waited for things to unfold. Soon enough, we got to see the main protagonist -- someone we are supposed like -- struggle briefly with and then accept the idea of killing innocent people on nothing more than blind faith in a mysterious, unseen and unfathomable authority saying they must be killed now to prevent never-specified future harms. Yes, the movie presents the issue that clearly, and then basically endorses the cold-blooded murder of innocents on faith. Our jaws dropped.
Oh, but it gets worse. Even after the danger of such blind faith and obedience was demonstrated to be problematic in the course of the plot, a second important character who we are to sympathize with and enjoy the action of goes and deliberately acts on such faith in the face of that demonstration -- and in a gigantically self-sacrificial manner! Our eyes boggled.
As if all that isn't horrid enough to be whacked in the face with, the movie underscores it by closing with a direct challenge addressed to the audience, along the lines of "see how I took splendid control of my life -- well, what have you done lately?"
We stood up and shuffled out, numb at the Columbine-level insanity of it's message... and of so many people thinking it is just fine, if not great.Labels: Culture, Film, WTF
| | | E-mail Greg Perkins PermaLink () Comments (New Page) |
|
| |
Subscribe to NoodleFood Blog Posts via Feed Reader via E-mail
Subscribe to NoodleCast Podcasts M4A via iTunes (MP3) via Feed Reader via E-mail
|
|
Wednesday, June 11, 2008 |
|
What’s So Special About Obama |
|
By Greg Perkins @ 8:41 AM
What's the big deal about Obama? Why does he have such an effect on so many people?
Finally, someone has shown the courage to lay it all out for us! Writing in his column for the San Fransisco Chronicle, Mark Morfurd reveals that "Barack Obama isn't really one of us. Not in the normal way, anyway."
Many spiritually advanced people I know (not coweringly religious, mind you, but deeply spiritual) identify Obama as a Lightworker, that rare kind of attuned being who has the ability to lead us not merely to new foreign policies or health care plans or whatnot, but who can actually help usher in a new way of being on the planet, of relating and connecting and engaging with this bizarre earthly experiment. These kinds of people actually help us evolve. They are philosophers and peacemakers of a very high order, and they speak not just to reason or emotion, but to the soul.
The unusual thing is, true Lightworkers almost never appear on such a brutal, spiritually demeaning stage as national politics. This is why Obama is so rare. And this why he is so often compared to Kennedy and Martin Luther King Jr., to those leaders in our culture whose stirring vibrations still resonate throughout our short history. ...
Those attuned to energies beyond the literal meanings of things, these people say JFK wasn't assassinated for any typical reason you can name. It's because he was just this kind of high-vibration being, a peacemaker, at odds with the war machine, the CIA, the dark side. And it killed him.
Now, Obama. The next step. Another try. Good grief.Labels: Culture, Election, WTF
| | | E-mail Greg Perkins PermaLink () Comments (New Page) |
|
| |
Subscribe to NoodleFood Blog Posts via Feed Reader via E-mail
Subscribe to NoodleCast Podcasts M4A via iTunes (MP3) via Feed Reader via E-mail
|
|
|
| | |
|
