Thursday, January 31, 2008
Tuesday, January 29, 2008
Since, y'know, Obama has a Y chromosone and everything
From CNN.com: Women's Group Slams Kennedy for Betrayal, about the New York chapter of NOW's criticism of Ted Kennedy's endorsement of Barack Obama over Hillary Clinton:
I don't want to be too eager to criticize this, since for all I know CNN.com is misrepresenting NOW or taking their statement out of context.
But is there any way to interpret the snippet quoted above, other than "HOW DARE Ted Kennedy endorse a man when there's a qualified woman running!"? Any way at all?
I'm trying to be fair and think of ways to interpret that statement which don't reflect badly on NOW, making them look like absurd caricatures of man-hating feminists. And I'm not having much luck.
"Sen. Kennedy’s endorsement of Hillary Clinton’s opponent in the Democratic presidential primary campaign has really hit women hard," said the statement. "Women have forgiven Kennedy, stuck up for him, stood by him, hushed the fact that he was late in his support of Title IX, the ERA, the Family Leave and Medical Act to name a few."
"And now the greatest betrayal! We are repaid with his abandonment!" the statement continues. "He’s picked the new guy over us. He’s joined the list of progressive white men who can’t or won’t handle the prospect of a woman president who is Hillary Clinton."
I don't want to be too eager to criticize this, since for all I know CNN.com is misrepresenting NOW or taking their statement out of context.
But is there any way to interpret the snippet quoted above, other than "HOW DARE Ted Kennedy endorse a man when there's a qualified woman running!"? Any way at all?
I'm trying to be fair and think of ways to interpret that statement which don't reflect badly on NOW, making them look like absurd caricatures of man-hating feminists. And I'm not having much luck.
Monday, January 28, 2008
My Official Wishy-Washy Predictions
Following are my official predictions for how the nominating contests for the 2008 Presidential Race will turn out. If I guess right I get to say "I told you so". If I guess wrong, these predictions are so wishy-washy and lacking in confidence that I won't lose face. It's win-win for me!
On the Democratic side, I strongly suspect Clinton is going to win in the end. She's got too much of a broad advantage in polls in too many states for Obama to overcome her. I say that even after Obama's win in South Carolina. On the other hand, apparently Obama's margin of victory in South Carolina was much larger than anyone anticipated - larger, indeed, than the pre-primary polls predicted.
In my mind Clinton's got a 60% shot of becoming the nominee. Which is pretty much what I suspected a month ago.
On the Republican side, I lack even the confidence to single out any specific candidate as the most likely eventual nominee, so I'll just say this: I strongly suspect the winner of the Florida primary will eventually win the nomination. How's that for a wishy-washy pick? Both Romney and McCain have ample resources and neither is going to give up without a massive fight. Huckabee, last I checked, was still running. And although Giuliani is doing his best to imitate Howard Dean's legendary 2004 failure to meet expectations, a Giuliani win in Florida wouldn't be the oddest thing to happen so far this year in American politics.
In my mind both Romney and McCain have 45% shots of becoming the nominee.
01.30.2008 UPDATE: Seems I'm predicting a McCain nomination! I'm gonna adjust my percentages to McCain 60%, Romney 35%.
On the Democratic side, I strongly suspect Clinton is going to win in the end. She's got too much of a broad advantage in polls in too many states for Obama to overcome her. I say that even after Obama's win in South Carolina. On the other hand, apparently Obama's margin of victory in South Carolina was much larger than anyone anticipated - larger, indeed, than the pre-primary polls predicted.
In my mind Clinton's got a 60% shot of becoming the nominee. Which is pretty much what I suspected a month ago.
On the Republican side, I lack even the confidence to single out any specific candidate as the most likely eventual nominee, so I'll just say this: I strongly suspect the winner of the Florida primary will eventually win the nomination. How's that for a wishy-washy pick? Both Romney and McCain have ample resources and neither is going to give up without a massive fight. Huckabee, last I checked, was still running. And although Giuliani is doing his best to imitate Howard Dean's legendary 2004 failure to meet expectations, a Giuliani win in Florida wouldn't be the oddest thing to happen so far this year in American politics.
In my mind both Romney and McCain have 45% shots of becoming the nominee.
01.30.2008 UPDATE: Seems I'm predicting a McCain nomination! I'm gonna adjust my percentages to McCain 60%, Romney 35%.
Discourse
I love comment threads on political blogs.
Anonymous you are such a fucking loser.
Posted by: Anonymous | January 27, 2008 6:11 AM
Friday, January 25, 2008
Latitude Wonkery
I just realized today (thanks to playing with Google Earth) that 25°00'00" N goes right by my neighborhood, and in fact I've crossed it on foot innumerable times since moving here.
Neato. Roosevelt Rd. meets 25°N just north of the intersection with Jinglong St. and Jingfu St. I'm going to go there and take a picture.
Neato. Roosevelt Rd. meets 25°N just north of the intersection with Jinglong St. and Jingfu St. I'm going to go there and take a picture.
The Important Question
How can I do actual work, sitting at my computer at home which is connected to the Internet, without letting myself be distracted every three minutes by all the shiny interesting things available for me to look at online?
Thursday, January 24, 2008
Balancing Boiled Frogs
I assume we are all familiar with the boiled frog metaphor:
Now, the literal veracity of this has been debunked. Snopes.com delivers its verdict here. And James Fallows has been waging a long war against the metaphor.
But frankly - and I might be speaking a heresy for all those rigorous empiricists out there - if your life is not directly affected by whether you can kill a frog this way or not, it doesn't really matter. It's a metaphor. It describes a situation relevant to human psychology. Sometimes the metaphor is apt. And sometimes it gets used stupidly. But whether it's literally true or not is basically irrelevant. It's just a concise way of describing a situation that would otherwise need to be spelled out in more detail.
Actually, I'll admit that spelling everything out in excruciating detail wouldn't necessarily be a bad thing. Lots of people get away with dumbass ideas because they encode them in intelligent-sounding metaphors. Spell it out in plain language, and the underlying stupidities become more apparent. But that would still be true even if you could kill frogs by slowly boiling them to death.
A frog can be boiled alive if the water is heated slowly enough — it is said that if a frog is placed in boiling water, it will jump out, but if it is placed in cold water that is slowly heated, it will never jump out.
Now, the literal veracity of this has been debunked. Snopes.com delivers its verdict here. And James Fallows has been waging a long war against the metaphor.
But frankly - and I might be speaking a heresy for all those rigorous empiricists out there - if your life is not directly affected by whether you can kill a frog this way or not, it doesn't really matter. It's a metaphor. It describes a situation relevant to human psychology. Sometimes the metaphor is apt. And sometimes it gets used stupidly. But whether it's literally true or not is basically irrelevant. It's just a concise way of describing a situation that would otherwise need to be spelled out in more detail.
Actually, I'll admit that spelling everything out in excruciating detail wouldn't necessarily be a bad thing. Lots of people get away with dumbass ideas because they encode them in intelligent-sounding metaphors. Spell it out in plain language, and the underlying stupidities become more apparent. But that would still be true even if you could kill frogs by slowly boiling them to death.
Wednesday, January 23, 2008
Whom shall I root for?
I don't know who to root for in the race for the Republican Presidential nomination.
At this point it sure looks the nominee will be either McCain or Romney. (Now that I've said that, watch the nomination somehow fall into Ron Paul's lap.)
I would rather see a President McCain than a President Romney.
But I'd prefer to have a Democrat elected, and I think Romney would be much more likely to lose the general election than McCain.
Tough choice.
At this point it sure looks the nominee will be either McCain or Romney. (Now that I've said that, watch the nomination somehow fall into Ron Paul's lap.)
I would rather see a President McCain than a President Romney.
But I'd prefer to have a Democrat elected, and I think Romney would be much more likely to lose the general election than McCain.
Tough choice.
Fred Thompson will not be our next President after all
There is Earth-shattering news out of the United States of America. Fred Thompson, the world's most exciting man, has quit the 2008 Presidential race.
I know I said I would stop posting about the worthless 2008 Political Futures Market. But I just had to point out that, in the Republican Presidential race, lately Fred Thompson's price has been below Condoleezza Rice's. Condoleezza Rice, if you'll recall, is not running for anything this year.
I shall leave it to Josh Marshall to describe how the world's most exciting man gave up his Presidential aspirations:
I know I said I would stop posting about the worthless 2008 Political Futures Market. But I just had to point out that, in the Republican Presidential race, lately Fred Thompson's price has been below Condoleezza Rice's. Condoleezza Rice, if you'll recall, is not running for anything this year.
I shall leave it to Josh Marshall to describe how the world's most exciting man gave up his Presidential aspirations:
As you can see, Fred Thompson is now officially out of the GOP primary race. You can read his statement here. I thought it was worth pointing out though how hilariously Fred has managed to have his departure be as lackadaisical and delayed as was his entrance into the race.
As you can remember, Thompson fiddled and waited and yawned and dawdled, eventually going through something like two or three campaign managers before even getting in the race. And here it's been pretty obvious that the guy's been toast for weeks. He basically gave his withdrawal speech three days ago on primary night. Earlier today he put out word that he wasn't showing up for the next debate. And now as sort of an afterthought he mentions that he's dropping out of the campaign.
I say two weeks before he picks up the phone and lets his campaign workers know there's no need to come by the office any more.
Curry Hell
BoingBoing is carrying the obituary of Abdul Latif, curry restauranteur from Newcastle upon Tyne, whose Ruplai Restaurant was well-known for his Curry Hell.
Anyone finishing the full portion of Curry Hell will not be charged for that dish. He or she will also be presented with a certificate of achivement. Anyone failing to finish the portion will be charged £6.95 for the dish. Should anyone die in the attempt, the cost of the dish will be incurred by the next of kin."Mr. Latif was evidently a man I could respect. RIP.
Mr. Latif and his establishment will not be responsible if your arsehole falls out the bottom of your trouser legs after eating Curry Hell.
Tuesday, January 22, 2008
Poop-Flinging
For a lot of people, expressing an opinion is nothing more than the human equivalent of an ape baring its teeth or flinging feces. It's a socially acceptable way for an adult to be a playground bully, and the actual content of the opinion is not terribly relevant. And if you try to rebut someone else's opinion based on its merits (or lack thereof), you're being cheeky. After all, now you're the one misunderstanding what opinions are for. I suspect that this may be true across all cultures and all of history.
I thought of this in connection with the list of brilliant quotes from fundamentalist Christian chat rooms which has been making the rounds lately.
A sample opinion:
If you respond to this by trying to teach this person about organic chemistry and correcti his misunderstandings, your efforts are going to be met by insults and scorn. You're fundamentally misunderstanding the nature of the discourse. This isn't really about science.
Here is the correct way to respond:
Or just don't respond at all. Assuming he's not a satirist, the guy who wrote that quote has the same mentality as a kid on the playground yelling vaguely abusive nonsense at another kid to make him go away.
This makes me sad. Science represents the sum total of hundreds of years of humans trying to learn about the universe. Many excellently written popular science books (the last good example I read was The God Particle: If the Universe Is the Answer, What Is the Question? by Leon Lederman and Dick Tersi) have brilliantly captured the spirit and romance of scientific discovery. There's real wonder and intellectual excitement there.
And here it's been reduced to a tool to convey basically the same message as a chimp baring its teeth, only over the Internet. Now, I don't think there's anything innately wrong with that. There's nothing wrong with irreverence. But you have to be able to see the universe as something other than a source of words you can draw on every time you want to bare your teeth and fling your poop.
A lot of people just don't remember that there's a real world out there that's more than just a source of topics that they can draw on for their chest-beating rants. It's not just religious fundamentalists, but people across every social and political spectrum that insist on using words the way chimpanzees use poop.
I thought of this in connection with the list of brilliant quotes from fundamentalist Christian chat rooms which has been making the rounds lately.
A sample opinion:
"Everyone knows scientists insist on using complex terminology to make it harder for True Christians to refute their claims. Deoxyribonucleic Acid, for example... sounds impressive, right? But have you ever seen what happens if you put something in acid? It dissolves! If we had all this acid in our cells, we'd all dissolve! So much for the Theory of Evolution, Check MATE!"
If you respond to this by trying to teach this person about organic chemistry and correcti his misunderstandings, your efforts are going to be met by insults and scorn. You're fundamentally misunderstanding the nature of the discourse. This isn't really about science.
Here is the correct way to respond:
Your mom's made of acid.
Or just don't respond at all. Assuming he's not a satirist, the guy who wrote that quote has the same mentality as a kid on the playground yelling vaguely abusive nonsense at another kid to make him go away.
This makes me sad. Science represents the sum total of hundreds of years of humans trying to learn about the universe. Many excellently written popular science books (the last good example I read was The God Particle: If the Universe Is the Answer, What Is the Question? by Leon Lederman and Dick Tersi) have brilliantly captured the spirit and romance of scientific discovery. There's real wonder and intellectual excitement there.
And here it's been reduced to a tool to convey basically the same message as a chimp baring its teeth, only over the Internet. Now, I don't think there's anything innately wrong with that. There's nothing wrong with irreverence. But you have to be able to see the universe as something other than a source of words you can draw on every time you want to bare your teeth and fling your poop.
A lot of people just don't remember that there's a real world out there that's more than just a source of topics that they can draw on for their chest-beating rants. It's not just religious fundamentalists, but people across every social and political spectrum that insist on using words the way chimpanzees use poop.
Holes In My Library
Top five published authors whom I have never read but really, really should:
1. Terry Pratchet. The absolute number-one author whom I feel I really should have become acquainted with at some point, but didn't. The man is held in high veneration by a certain geeky subset of the population whose tastes tend to mirror mine very well. I like Monty Python, Douglas Adams, and British comedy and SF writing in general. Why have I taken so long to pick up Terry Pratchet?
2. P. G. Wodehouse. The grand patriarch of modern British droll comedic writing, Wodehouse has influenced countless writers ever since he became popular almost a century ago.
3. Alfred Bester. I've read a lot of old-style science fiction, but Bester's novels and short stories have escaped me so far. The man's regarded as one of the high points in mid-twentieth-century science fiction writing. His virtues have been extolled by the likes of Stephen King and he earned a mention on The Simpsons.
4. John Scalzi. I think the man's got one of the most entertaining blogs in existence today. Yet he makes his living as a fiction writer, and I've never bothered to read his fiction. That ought to change.
5. Anthony Burgess. A Clockwork Orange is one of those books that I've been meaning to read for, oh, the past decade. Also, the man spoke fluent Malay, which I have to respect.
1. Terry Pratchet. The absolute number-one author whom I feel I really should have become acquainted with at some point, but didn't. The man is held in high veneration by a certain geeky subset of the population whose tastes tend to mirror mine very well. I like Monty Python, Douglas Adams, and British comedy and SF writing in general. Why have I taken so long to pick up Terry Pratchet?
2. P. G. Wodehouse. The grand patriarch of modern British droll comedic writing, Wodehouse has influenced countless writers ever since he became popular almost a century ago.
3. Alfred Bester. I've read a lot of old-style science fiction, but Bester's novels and short stories have escaped me so far. The man's regarded as one of the high points in mid-twentieth-century science fiction writing. His virtues have been extolled by the likes of Stephen King and he earned a mention on The Simpsons.
4. John Scalzi. I think the man's got one of the most entertaining blogs in existence today. Yet he makes his living as a fiction writer, and I've never bothered to read his fiction. That ought to change.
5. Anthony Burgess. A Clockwork Orange is one of those books that I've been meaning to read for, oh, the past decade. Also, the man spoke fluent Malay, which I have to respect.
Monday, January 21, 2008
Nothing Unreal Exists
My response to the latest xkcd comic:
The world we live in is the natural world. If a thing is supernatural, it is not part of this universe. By definition, supernatural powers can only be possessed by fictional characters or mythological figures.
Therefore, the day I can shoot lightning bolts from my fingers like Emperor Palpatine is the day it ceases to be a supernatural power. Mr. Xkcd Guy, your graph is a tautology.
I Am Intrigued
I was a big fan of Mystery Science Theater 3000 during my high school days. I've seen most of the late-period Comedy Central episodes and a good chunk of the Sci-Fi Channel ones. And I can remember who Dr. Erhardt is without having to be reminded.
And that is why I am very, very intrigued by this Cinematic Titanic thingy that five MST3K alumni have created. Very intrigued indeed. Looks like the same general concept, minus the host segments and the overall plot arc of the mad scientists and the 'bots.
Interesting.
And that is why I am very, very intrigued by this Cinematic Titanic thingy that five MST3K alumni have created. Very intrigued indeed. Looks like the same general concept, minus the host segments and the overall plot arc of the mad scientists and the 'bots.
Interesting.
Don't Vote for Obama
If Barack Obama wins the Democratic nomination, I'm going to tell everybody not to vote for him in November because he's unelectable. After all, everyone knows a black man can't be elected President.
Also, he's a Muslim who personally crashed not one but both planes into the World Trade Center.
Also, he's a Muslim who personally crashed not one but both planes into the World Trade Center.
Friday, January 18, 2008
Reserving the Right to Be Offended
"Dear Prudence" is amusing and disturbing as always:
Obviously these two women are living in a bubble if they think they are entitled to treat others this way and get away with it. I wonder if I've also been living in a bubble of sorts. It's never occurred to me that someone might take offense at words like "girlfriend". Granted, I've spent a good chunk of the last couple of years living outside of the United States, but I'm still a native of the United States, and anyone offended by my use of the word "girlfriend" would face an uphill battle trying to make me understand that they weren't joking. Am I at fault here?
I don't use truly offensive racial epithets. I don't use sexually demeaning terms in inappropriate situations. And if the general consensus among English speakers changed so that words like "girlfriend" were deemed unacceptable, I would try to change with it. But as far as I can tell, that hasn't happened.
Actually, I think this is an excellent opportunity to grab the initiative and position myself at the forefront of linguistic change. I have unilaterally decided that the word "because" is highly offensive. (I don't think I particularly need a reason.) I have no real conception of other minds, so I naturally assume that the rest of the English-speaking world has automatically fallen into step behind me. Should I hear someone using what sounds like the offensive word, my first assumption will be that they are actually using the proto-Indo-European curse "bi-kuz", meaning "one who copulates with dead oxen", and I will politely and sweetly inquire what ox corpse-fuckers have to do with whatever it is we're talking about. After all, "bi-kuz" may not be a word for polite company, but it's still far less offensive than "b*c**s*".
Dear Prudence,How charming. I especially like the bit about pretending to misunderstand the word "girlfriend" to mean "prepubescent woman I'm dating." What an excellent way to win others over to your side and make them see the folly of their ways.
I'm a college student in my 20s who has a part-time job at a nonprofit environmental organization. The work is very stressful and challenging, but I love what I do. Unfortunately, I have a problem with two of my bosses. One of them is an outspoken radical anarchist vegan ultra-feminist who refers to herself as a dyke. The other is just a feminist. At work, we have a "positive and progressive atmosphere" where what matters most about any type of interaction is "impact versus intent." I'm constantly being corrected, chastised, and punished for using the wrong words. I was reprimanded once because my boss overheard my conversation with a co-worker about my girlfriend. She poked her way into our conversation, asked me some probing questions, and left, then later confronted me in private. She was disgusted that I was talking about my inappropriate and immoral relationship. She said that because I mentioned my "girlfriend," she could only assume I'm a pedophile, because a "girl" is a prepubescent woman. As the rules of the office stated, what mattered was that she was "impacted." The other day I was corrected for referring to one of our members as a "wonderful lady." It turns out lady is also sexist and classist. It can be hard to be productive when I'm always walking on eggshells. I don't think I'm politically incorrect, and I'm always censoring myself, but why do they get to be themselves at work, while I have to pretend to be someone else?
—Not a Chauvinist
Obviously these two women are living in a bubble if they think they are entitled to treat others this way and get away with it. I wonder if I've also been living in a bubble of sorts. It's never occurred to me that someone might take offense at words like "girlfriend". Granted, I've spent a good chunk of the last couple of years living outside of the United States, but I'm still a native of the United States, and anyone offended by my use of the word "girlfriend" would face an uphill battle trying to make me understand that they weren't joking. Am I at fault here?
I don't use truly offensive racial epithets. I don't use sexually demeaning terms in inappropriate situations. And if the general consensus among English speakers changed so that words like "girlfriend" were deemed unacceptable, I would try to change with it. But as far as I can tell, that hasn't happened.
Actually, I think this is an excellent opportunity to grab the initiative and position myself at the forefront of linguistic change. I have unilaterally decided that the word "because" is highly offensive. (I don't think I particularly need a reason.) I have no real conception of other minds, so I naturally assume that the rest of the English-speaking world has automatically fallen into step behind me. Should I hear someone using what sounds like the offensive word, my first assumption will be that they are actually using the proto-Indo-European curse "bi-kuz", meaning "one who copulates with dead oxen", and I will politely and sweetly inquire what ox corpse-fuckers have to do with whatever it is we're talking about. After all, "bi-kuz" may not be a word for polite company, but it's still far less offensive than "b*c**s*".
Thursday, January 17, 2008
Fascinating detritus
Charlie Stross has posted on a rich source of fundamentalist wisdom, harvested from chat rooms.
I'm sure these bits of wisdom will give great jollity to all sorts of people, while making others feel ashamed to even admit to being members of the human race.
Me, I just wanna play the spoilsport by mentioning two things.
First, I bet there are plenty of people out there who aren't religious loonies, who accept modern science and respect the secular life, but who still sound just as moronic when arguing online. You think these fundies are misunderstanding science? There are secularists who misunderstand religion just as badly, the better to make fun of it. Think of what religious people must think of THAT.
I'm not trying to defend religiously-inspired loons who spout nonsense online. Just pointing out that willfully misunderstanding stuff so it becomes easier to criticize is not a behavior limited to fundamentalist Christians.
Second, I have a hunch that a good ten percent of this material was originally written as parody, and then unknowingly included when this was all assembled. (Look at that quote referencing the Second Law of Thermodynamics. It's being just a bit too obvious in setting up its punch line.)
That said... enjoy the detritus, one and all.
"I can sum it all up in three words: Evolution is a lie"Much, much more here.
"One of the most basic laws in the universe is the Second Law of Thermodynamics. This states that as time goes by, entropy in an environment will increase. Evolution argues differently against a law that is accepted EVERYWHERE BY EVERYONE. Evolution says that we started out simple, and over time became more complex. That just isn't possible: UNLESS there is a giant outside source of energy supplying the Earth with huge amounts of energy. If there were such a source, scientists would certainly know about it."
"Jesus is not a Jew. Jesus was Jewish."
"all the evolutionists, tell me something. i know how the big bang "has happened, but tell me, wouldnt an explosion, especially one that size, take away life instead of allow it? think about it. ex: the a-bomb, the h-bomb, grenades, cannon balls (when fired from a cannon of course), mines, rocket launchers, and anything and everything in between. they all have taken lives."
[Replying to 'as for not seeing evolution it takes several million years... incase you missed that memo...']
"several million years for a monkey to turn into a man. oh wait thats right. monkeys dont live several million years."
"Everyone knows scientists insist on using complex terminology to make it harder for True Christians to refute their claims. Deoxyribonucleic Acid, for example... sounds impressive, right? But have you ever seen what happens if you put something in acid? It dissolves! If we had all this acid in our cells, we'd all dissolve! So much for the Theory of Evolution, Check MATE!"
"A woman wants to abort a rape child? She should have thought of that before she walked down that dark alley without a male prescence, not to mention she should have thought before putting on revealing attire."
I'm sure these bits of wisdom will give great jollity to all sorts of people, while making others feel ashamed to even admit to being members of the human race.
Me, I just wanna play the spoilsport by mentioning two things.
First, I bet there are plenty of people out there who aren't religious loonies, who accept modern science and respect the secular life, but who still sound just as moronic when arguing online. You think these fundies are misunderstanding science? There are secularists who misunderstand religion just as badly, the better to make fun of it. Think of what religious people must think of THAT.
I'm not trying to defend religiously-inspired loons who spout nonsense online. Just pointing out that willfully misunderstanding stuff so it becomes easier to criticize is not a behavior limited to fundamentalist Christians.
Second, I have a hunch that a good ten percent of this material was originally written as parody, and then unknowingly included when this was all assembled. (Look at that quote referencing the Second Law of Thermodynamics. It's being just a bit too obvious in setting up its punch line.)
That said... enjoy the detritus, one and all.
A Historical Question
Okay, I have a question of the utmost cartographic geekery after reading Ferdinand Magellan's bio.Did Magellan reach the Spice Islands (today known as Maluku, part of Indonesia) or not?
Of course he didn't reach them in 1521 on his famous voyage around the world, since he got killed in the Philippines first.
But various posters on the discussion page of Magellan's Wikipedia bio claim that he visited them while he was still in the service of Portugal, several years before his famous voyage. Laurence Bergreen's book Over the Edge of the World does not support this; Bergreen only has Magellan traveling as far east as India.
Why does it matter? It matters because it's an issue of the highest cartographic geekery. Maluku is further east than Mactan, the island in the Philippines where Magellan was killed.
Therefore, if Magellan reached Maluku, then in his life he crossed every line of longitude in the world. Since Magellan and the men who served under him were probably the first people to cross both the Atlantic and the Pacific, then Magellan himself would have been the first human being to cross every line of longitude. (Unless other men aboard his ships had already been as far east as Maluku, in which case Magellan would have shared this geeky honor.)
Obviously this a tremendously important question for map geeks. Magellan's own Wikipedia bio claims that:
As he died farther west than the Spice Islands, which he had visited on earlier voyages from the west, he became one of the first individuals to cross all the meridians of the globe.But then the bio suspiciously fails to mention this alleged visit to Maluku.
This bit of useless centuries-old trivia has made me genuinely curious.
By the way, there's little question as to who were the first people to cross every line of latitude in the world; it was definitely this guy and this guy, accomplishing the feat together.
Wednesday, January 16, 2008
Preppie Dork
I saw a segment on the news yesterday all about the primary contests, and how Mitt Romney is supposed to be handsome and very Presidential-looking, and is occasionally being mocked for it.
This was on Taiwanese TV. Granted, it was an American news story they'd picked up (and it was preceded by a story on Wesley Snipes and his income tax woes), but it's still a remarkable level of interest that the Taiwanese media is showing. American TV news generally doesn't give a huge amount of coverage to foreign general elections, much less intra-party squabbles that precede them.
Several Democratic-leaning online bloggers have asserted that, for the leftie American who doesn't trust the Republicans, Mitt Romney is probably the least unacceptable potential President. Matthew Yglesias makes the case here. This is a direct rebuttal to a awful lot of Democrats, myself included, who would rather see John McCain get elected than any other Republican this year.
I think it may just come down to those ever-untrustworthy gut instincts. People say Romney is handsome, but I'm more inclined to think he looks like he was assembled in a politician factory.
If I were to psychoanalyze myself, I might say that Romney subconsciously reminds me of every preppie dork who I've ever come to dislike. I think I have an instinctive distrust of overly perfect overachieving types. It's unfair. It's utterly illogical. But it's hardwired into my brain somewhere. None of the other candidates sets it off.
Note: If Romney wins the election, becomes one of the most widely respected and beloved leaders of the first half of the 21st Century and they build a Romney Memorial somewhere on the National Mall in Washington DC, please do not dredge this post up and remind me of it.
This was on Taiwanese TV. Granted, it was an American news story they'd picked up (and it was preceded by a story on Wesley Snipes and his income tax woes), but it's still a remarkable level of interest that the Taiwanese media is showing. American TV news generally doesn't give a huge amount of coverage to foreign general elections, much less intra-party squabbles that precede them.
Several Democratic-leaning online bloggers have asserted that, for the leftie American who doesn't trust the Republicans, Mitt Romney is probably the least unacceptable potential President. Matthew Yglesias makes the case here. This is a direct rebuttal to a awful lot of Democrats, myself included, who would rather see John McCain get elected than any other Republican this year.
I think it may just come down to those ever-untrustworthy gut instincts. People say Romney is handsome, but I'm more inclined to think he looks like he was assembled in a politician factory.
If I were to psychoanalyze myself, I might say that Romney subconsciously reminds me of every preppie dork who I've ever come to dislike. I think I have an instinctive distrust of overly perfect overachieving types. It's unfair. It's utterly illogical. But it's hardwired into my brain somewhere. None of the other candidates sets it off.
Note: If Romney wins the election, becomes one of the most widely respected and beloved leaders of the first half of the 21st Century and they build a Romney Memorial somewhere on the National Mall in Washington DC, please do not dredge this post up and remind me of it.
01.16.2008 YouTube
A classic song from the 1940s. Somehow, the Muppet version seems especially appropriate.
Making New Maps
I'm reading Laurence Begreen's Over the Edge of the World: Magellan's Terrifying Circumnavigation of the Globe.
And it's got me thinking about map-making. Specifically, making the first-ever map of an area. Adding completely new cartographic data to the world's grand map supply. That's something Magellan and his successors could do, that we really can't do any more in this day and age. We've explored everything.
Of course I remember that most of the areas Magellan "discovered" were already inhabited by people. But these were people whose cultures generally didn't include the urge to obsessively document everything in map form. Even the Arabs and (Asian) Indians and East Asians of Magellan's day generally didn't have the exploring (invading, converting) bug that infected Europeans. So it was largely up to Europe to explore, record, and quantify everything, and consolidate that knowledge. Magellan's fleet discovered a temperate land occupied by large-footed giants. Patagonia! After making the first recorded Pacific crossing, Magellan's fleet landed at an inhabited island previously unknown to outsiders. Guam! From there, Magellan's fleet sailed on to a wealthy archipelago, well-known to Chinese and Arab traders but not the Europeans. The Philippines!
And then Magellan got himself killed when he provoked a totally unneccessary battle. I'm not gonna romanticize Magellan or the dark undersides of European expansion.
Now all the maps have been drawn, analyzed, and studied. (Also updated to keep up with global warming.) Vast areas of the ocean floor remain to be mapped, which is really neat and intriguing if you think about it. But somehow it's not the same.
And in a way, this week some scientists are mapping a bit of the last remaining unmapped territory. I'm talking about the planet Mercury.
In 1974, the spacecraft Mariner 10 flew by Mercury. It did not go into orbit, but it snapped enough close-up pictures of the surface for scientists to put together maps of much of the planet.
This is a high-quality image of Mercury put together from Mariner 10 images. See that unnaturally flat band in the upper right? That's an unmapped area, which Mariner 10 couldn't see.
It got filled in. This week.
The spacecraft MESSENGER became only the second spacecraft to snap close-up pictures of Mercury when it flew by the planet this week. It will make two more flybys in 2008 and 2009, using Mercury's gravity to slow down, before becoming the first spacecraft to orbit the planet in 2011.
A single shot - not a composite - of Mercury taken by the MESSENGER probe.
But Mercury is a dead planet. We 21st-century humans get to name craters and mountains on the Mercurian surface, but Magellan and his successors got to be the first to name and catalog features on a living planet.
There are other planets out there orbiting other stars, and probably this century we'll be able to see Earth-like planets through our telescopes. But I'm skeptical that we'll be able to discern bays, rivers, and mountains. The great age of mapping unexplored territory is over.
Or it won't begin until we invent starships.
And it's got me thinking about map-making. Specifically, making the first-ever map of an area. Adding completely new cartographic data to the world's grand map supply. That's something Magellan and his successors could do, that we really can't do any more in this day and age. We've explored everything.
Of course I remember that most of the areas Magellan "discovered" were already inhabited by people. But these were people whose cultures generally didn't include the urge to obsessively document everything in map form. Even the Arabs and (Asian) Indians and East Asians of Magellan's day generally didn't have the exploring (invading, converting) bug that infected Europeans. So it was largely up to Europe to explore, record, and quantify everything, and consolidate that knowledge. Magellan's fleet discovered a temperate land occupied by large-footed giants. Patagonia! After making the first recorded Pacific crossing, Magellan's fleet landed at an inhabited island previously unknown to outsiders. Guam! From there, Magellan's fleet sailed on to a wealthy archipelago, well-known to Chinese and Arab traders but not the Europeans. The Philippines!
And then Magellan got himself killed when he provoked a totally unneccessary battle. I'm not gonna romanticize Magellan or the dark undersides of European expansion.
Now all the maps have been drawn, analyzed, and studied. (Also updated to keep up with global warming.) Vast areas of the ocean floor remain to be mapped, which is really neat and intriguing if you think about it. But somehow it's not the same.
And in a way, this week some scientists are mapping a bit of the last remaining unmapped territory. I'm talking about the planet Mercury.
In 1974, the spacecraft Mariner 10 flew by Mercury. It did not go into orbit, but it snapped enough close-up pictures of the surface for scientists to put together maps of much of the planet.
This is a high-quality image of Mercury put together from Mariner 10 images. See that unnaturally flat band in the upper right? That's an unmapped area, which Mariner 10 couldn't see.It got filled in. This week.
The spacecraft MESSENGER became only the second spacecraft to snap close-up pictures of Mercury when it flew by the planet this week. It will make two more flybys in 2008 and 2009, using Mercury's gravity to slow down, before becoming the first spacecraft to orbit the planet in 2011.
A single shot - not a composite - of Mercury taken by the MESSENGER probe.But Mercury is a dead planet. We 21st-century humans get to name craters and mountains on the Mercurian surface, but Magellan and his successors got to be the first to name and catalog features on a living planet.
There are other planets out there orbiting other stars, and probably this century we'll be able to see Earth-like planets through our telescopes. But I'm skeptical that we'll be able to discern bays, rivers, and mountains. The great age of mapping unexplored territory is over.
Or it won't begin until we invent starships.
A Fire Upon the Deep
I've finished Vernor Vinge's long novel A Fire Upon the Deep, which I had picked up largely due to its reputation as one of the great SF novels of the 1990s.
As I said when I first picked it up, AFUTD is a "Look at this cool universe that I, the author, have thought up!" book. About half of the action takes place out in the Galaxy at large, as various races try to deal with the neoLovecraftian horror that some human scientists have inadvertently unleashed upon the cosmos. The action cuts back and forth between this galactic stage and a single planet, where two human kids are marooned amid increasing hostilities between two factions of a medieval alien race. Also, the kids have the secret to stop said neoLovecraftian horror. But don't realize it yet.
I'd like to amend something I wrote last week, when I was only a quarter of the way through the book. I said,
But I defy any reader to finish the book and think, "But I wanted to find out more about Grondr Vrinimikalir's species!" Actually, for all I know, Grondr Vrinimikalir might be one of the guys in the background in the Mos Eisley cantina. The universe of AFUTD has a lot of alien races, that's for sure.
It seems almost fitting, given its vast space-opera scope, that the universe of AFUTD is a universe of stark contrasts between Good and Evil. I initially thought the book had more moral complexity than it actually had. I was looking for moral nuance and shades of grey in the struggle between Woodcarver and Steel that really were not there. (As one book review puts it, "Lord Steel . . . is nothing more than a generic Evil Overlord type, albeit one who has read the FAQ.")
I was very darkly amused that the narrative used great detail to describe skirmishes between small groups of Tines with medieval weapons, while the violent genocides of billions upon billions of humans and aliens elsewhere in the galaxy at the same time were treated as only of tangential importance to the story.
As I said when I first picked it up, AFUTD is a "Look at this cool universe that I, the author, have thought up!" book. About half of the action takes place out in the Galaxy at large, as various races try to deal with the neoLovecraftian horror that some human scientists have inadvertently unleashed upon the cosmos. The action cuts back and forth between this galactic stage and a single planet, where two human kids are marooned amid increasing hostilities between two factions of a medieval alien race. Also, the kids have the secret to stop said neoLovecraftian horror. But don't realize it yet.
I'd like to amend something I wrote last week, when I was only a quarter of the way through the book. I said,
The book's full of aliens. But except for the one alien race we readers are obviously supposed to find extremely intriguing (the group-mind Tines - and they are intriguing), all the numerous aliens in this universe are about as individually interesting as the guys in the Mos Eisley cantina in the original Star Wars. Which is to say, not very.Vinge redeems himself. The fascinating Tines are the shining jewel of the book, but as the novel progresses a second alien race, the Skroderiders, gets fleshed out to the point where they become almost as interesting. (I almost felt sorry for them that they were relegated to "second-most-interesting-alien" status.)
But I defy any reader to finish the book and think, "But I wanted to find out more about Grondr Vrinimikalir's species!" Actually, for all I know, Grondr Vrinimikalir might be one of the guys in the background in the Mos Eisley cantina. The universe of AFUTD has a lot of alien races, that's for sure.
It seems almost fitting, given its vast space-opera scope, that the universe of AFUTD is a universe of stark contrasts between Good and Evil. I initially thought the book had more moral complexity than it actually had. I was looking for moral nuance and shades of grey in the struggle between Woodcarver and Steel that really were not there. (As one book review puts it, "Lord Steel . . . is nothing more than a generic Evil Overlord type, albeit one who has read the FAQ.")
I was very darkly amused that the narrative used great detail to describe skirmishes between small groups of Tines with medieval weapons, while the violent genocides of billions upon billions of humans and aliens elsewhere in the galaxy at the same time were treated as only of tangential importance to the story.
Michigan Is Over With
OK, the Michigan primaries are over and done with. (SPOILER ALERT!! Romney wins.) Thoughts:
- By my count there have been 4 Republican front-runners in the past month. It's as if the GOP is actively trying to keep the nomination process going past Super Tuesday. The political geek in me would love to see this thing get stretched out as long as possible. And then the eventual winner losing to the Democratic nominee in November, of course.
- Five hundred and ninety two thousand, seven hundred and ninety eight Democrats in Michigan took the trouble to vote in a primary that doesn't mean squat. Folks doing their civic duty? A sign that Democrats are energized and ready to kick some Republican ass come November? (Actually, since a lot of Democrats probably crossed the lines to vote in the Republican primary, the number 592,798 and the stats behind it are probably pretty meaningless, even just to scope out what Michigan Democrats thought.)
- Before primary season began, I was convinced that things would go much as they did for the Democratic candidates in their 2004 primary race. I figured the winners of the Iowa caucuses would get a momentum boost that would put them over the top in New Hampshire and then every state beyond. Yeah, so obviously that hasn't happened. Someone needs to hit me the next time I assume things will happen in the future the way they've happened in the past.
- By my count there have been 4 Republican front-runners in the past month. It's as if the GOP is actively trying to keep the nomination process going past Super Tuesday. The political geek in me would love to see this thing get stretched out as long as possible. And then the eventual winner losing to the Democratic nominee in November, of course.
- Five hundred and ninety two thousand, seven hundred and ninety eight Democrats in Michigan took the trouble to vote in a primary that doesn't mean squat. Folks doing their civic duty? A sign that Democrats are energized and ready to kick some Republican ass come November? (Actually, since a lot of Democrats probably crossed the lines to vote in the Republican primary, the number 592,798 and the stats behind it are probably pretty meaningless, even just to scope out what Michigan Democrats thought.)
- Before primary season began, I was convinced that things would go much as they did for the Democratic candidates in their 2004 primary race. I figured the winners of the Iowa caucuses would get a momentum boost that would put them over the top in New Hampshire and then every state beyond. Yeah, so obviously that hasn't happened. Someone needs to hit me the next time I assume things will happen in the future the way they've happened in the past.
Friday, January 11, 2008
Taiwan
I'm trying to think of aspects of life in Taiwan that are unique to this country. Taiwan is of course similar in many ways to other countries in East Asia, but I think every nation has its unique points.
1. On days that are sufficiently auspicious, I'll walk down the street and pass tables set up in front of businesses, with various bits of food laid out as offerings to the gods. Sticks of incense are usually burned as well. There will be a metal container with a fire going; this is for the burning of spirit money and other important bits of paper (I've never been able to ascertain what, exactly). This is part of Chinese culture that the PRC has put an end to in mainland China. (I think much of the same things are done in other substantial Chinese communities around the world, but traditions probably continue the strongest in Taiwan.)
2. Lottery numbers are printed on receipts here; apparently there are several drawings each day, with prizes of various amounts awarded. On the one hand this means cashiers always expect you to want a receipt, no matter how small the purchase; this can be a bit annoying as you collect lots of small slips of paper. On the other hand, many businesses have collection boxes where you can donate receipts. I've never actually checked my receipts later to see if I won anything.
3. Taiwan's the first country I've lived in to have its own calendar. Years are counted from the fall of the Qing Dynasty and the formation of the Republic of China in 1911. (It is not unlike Japan officially counting the years from the beginning of the current emperor's reign.) The year 97 just began - the years change at the same time as in the Western calendar. Most official documents in Taiwan use the ROC Calendar, although I also see Western years widely used.
1. On days that are sufficiently auspicious, I'll walk down the street and pass tables set up in front of businesses, with various bits of food laid out as offerings to the gods. Sticks of incense are usually burned as well. There will be a metal container with a fire going; this is for the burning of spirit money and other important bits of paper (I've never been able to ascertain what, exactly). This is part of Chinese culture that the PRC has put an end to in mainland China. (I think much of the same things are done in other substantial Chinese communities around the world, but traditions probably continue the strongest in Taiwan.)
2. Lottery numbers are printed on receipts here; apparently there are several drawings each day, with prizes of various amounts awarded. On the one hand this means cashiers always expect you to want a receipt, no matter how small the purchase; this can be a bit annoying as you collect lots of small slips of paper. On the other hand, many businesses have collection boxes where you can donate receipts. I've never actually checked my receipts later to see if I won anything.
3. Taiwan's the first country I've lived in to have its own calendar. Years are counted from the fall of the Qing Dynasty and the formation of the Republic of China in 1911. (It is not unlike Japan officially counting the years from the beginning of the current emperor's reign.) The year 97 just began - the years change at the same time as in the Western calendar. Most official documents in Taiwan use the ROC Calendar, although I also see Western years widely used.
Smearin'
I officially agree with most of what John Scalzi says in this post about the U.S. elections. Although I'm certain that he made a factual error regarding McCain's age.
A quote I actually think I agree with:
Then I realized that these guys generally read columnists and supported politicians who were just as hard on the Democrats as the Dems allegedly are on the Republicans. In an alternate timeline in which these Republican-supporting people had grown up with a different political outlook, they would have produced the exact same "The XXX Party has proven itself to be the party of mudslinging!" rhetoric, just with the opposite party name. Dumb fakers.
Until I find a solid non-hypocrite out there who thinks the Democrats run too many smear campaigns, I will be forced to stick to my position that Ron Paul, Fred Thompson, John McCain, Mike Huckabee, Rudy Giuliani, and Mitt Romney are all child molesters. Of course, to be honest John Edwards, Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton are child molesters too.
A quote I actually think I agree with:
These are reasons that I can’t help but think the GOP would rather face Obama than Clinton in the general election: because I doubt she’s as unpopular as some folks want to believe, and also, when it comes right down to wallowing in the pig shit and going after your opponent with a splintery baseball bat, no one does it better than the Clintons, and the GOP is out of practice dealing with an opponent who not only hits back but is out to break your fucking skull. Obama’s already been marked as someone who wants to take the high road, which is to say, he’s a sitting duck for a smearing, and we all know how the GOP loves a soft target. The Clinton’s aren’t going to put up with that crap. The first 527 to try to Swift Boat Clinton is likely to get its collective ass handed to it.There was a time when I read guys who criticized the Democrats for excessive criticisms and mockery of Republicans (Bushisms. Stupid things Dan Quayle has allegedly uttered.) and I momentarily felt bad, thinking that the Dems were ultimately doing themselves a long-term disservice by potentially alienating voters instead of criticizing the Republicans on the issues.
Then I realized that these guys generally read columnists and supported politicians who were just as hard on the Democrats as the Dems allegedly are on the Republicans. In an alternate timeline in which these Republican-supporting people had grown up with a different political outlook, they would have produced the exact same "The XXX Party has proven itself to be the party of mudslinging!" rhetoric, just with the opposite party name. Dumb fakers.
Until I find a solid non-hypocrite out there who thinks the Democrats run too many smear campaigns, I will be forced to stick to my position that Ron Paul, Fred Thompson, John McCain, Mike Huckabee, Rudy Giuliani, and Mitt Romney are all child molesters. Of course, to be honest John Edwards, Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton are child molesters too.
Thursday, January 10, 2008
The Esteemed Mr. Norris
The recent elevation of Chuck Norris as one of the most politically powerful people in the United States has brought welcome attention to one of the great genres of American humor, the Chuck Norris Facts.
I've never seen a movie or TV show starring Chuck Norris. I don't care who Chuck Norris thinks would make a good President. I don't care what Chuck Norris' years of scientific research have taught him about the validity of evolution. But as a "variations on a theme" genre of humor, Chuck Norris Facts have achieved a popularity that's exceeded only by Your Mom jokes.
I've never seen a movie or TV show starring Chuck Norris. I don't care who Chuck Norris thinks would make a good President. I don't care what Chuck Norris' years of scientific research have taught him about the validity of evolution. But as a "variations on a theme" genre of humor, Chuck Norris Facts have achieved a popularity that's exceeded only by Your Mom jokes.
Chuck Norris frequently donates blood to the Red Cross. Just never his own.
When the boogeyman goes to sleep, he checks his closet for Chuck Norris.
Chuck Norris' tears cure cancer. Too bad he has never cried. Ever.
The leading causes of death in the United States are: 1. Heart Disease 2. Chuck Norris 3. Cancer.
Chuck Norris can win a game of Connect Four in only three moves.
Chuck Norris once visited the Virgin Islands. Now they're just the Islands.
Chuck Norris can speak braille.
Chuck Norris died ten years ago, but the Grim Reaper can't get up the courage to tell him.
Chuck Norris can divide by zero.
Chuck Norris only uses one chopstick.
When the Incredible Hulk gets angry he transforms into Chuck Norris.
Chuck Norris can slam revolving doors.
Chuck Norris' cowboy boots are made from real cowboys.
When Chuck Norris exercises, the machine gets stronger.
Rudeness Abroad
The Marmot's Hole has an interesting post up on a recent Korean news article.
I've lived in Korea and in Taiwan, and I've come to realize that what a lot of Westerners who live here characterize as the "rudeness" of the locals are things that really don't bother me at all. For example:
* Pushing, shoving, and bumping in crowded places, especially by strong and determined middle-aged women. This seems to be a common cultural feature in East Asian countries, and it doesn't bother me at all. Pisses the hell out of some Western expats, though.
* It's common for people in many East Asian countries to point out your physical blemishes or imperfections as if it's absolutely important that it be brought to your attention. For example, a co-worker in the office saying "GAAAH! You have a PIMPLE on your NOSE!" loudly enough for five other people to hear. Again, this doesn't bother me at all. Comes with the culture.
* It seems to be true in Korea (I'm not sure about Taiwan) that asking for an ingredient to be left out of a meal you're ordering in a restaurant is considered rather rude and arrogant, and what's likely to happen is that they won't say anything, but will just give you your meal complete with offending ingredient anyway. I think the customer-centric model of service never quite percolated down to modest Korean eateries. This never bothered me much, but I'm lucky that I'm not a vegetarian, I'll eat anything and I don't have any food allergies. More than a few Westerners have complained about this, and I can understand their frustration.
And what do I find genuinely rude?
* Treating foreigners like freaks, basically. This didn't bug me as much as it bugged many expats in Korea, maybe because I don't look hugely, ludicrously foreign. My face looks Western enough that I get convenience store clerks practicing their English on me and little kids saying 'Hello' to me, but I tend to dress conservatively, and I'm not so tall as to stand out noticeably. If I were extremely tall, or very dark-skinned, or blond, maybe my life in Korea would have been a lot less pleasant. From the anecdotal evidence I've heard from other foreigners, apparently other people have been less lucky.
A comment from that Marmot thread by "aaronm":
* One thing that really pisses off a lot of expats, in Korea and Taiwan and probably Japan and China too, is when locals automatically speak English with any Westerner they meet. Some Westerners interpret this as an implication that anyone with the incorrect ethnic features must be too feebleminded to understand Korean or Mandarin or Japanese. I think those foreigners have to look at the situation from the local's point of view. Westerners in East Asia who feel gratified or happy when a local speaks English to them probably outnumber Westerners who'd prefer being spoken to in the local language. So what's an English-speaking local meeting a Westerner to do?
Now, if the Westerner speaks the local language pretty decently but the local stubbornly refuses to speak to the Westerner in anything but English - that really is rude. (It's even worse if the local won't acknowledge that the Westerner is speaking the local language coherently at all.) Of course, this assumes that the Westerner really does speak the language as well as he thinks he does.
After interviewing 50 foreigners living in Korea, the Chosun reports that the actions of some Koreans can be considered “rude” if held up to a “global standard.” Put it simply, the Chosun article states that it is the result of some Koreans not recognizing and respecting other people who are “different”. It also recounts the experience of some of the interviewed foreigners.The comments section attached to the post is really long and really interesting.
I've lived in Korea and in Taiwan, and I've come to realize that what a lot of Westerners who live here characterize as the "rudeness" of the locals are things that really don't bother me at all. For example:
* Pushing, shoving, and bumping in crowded places, especially by strong and determined middle-aged women. This seems to be a common cultural feature in East Asian countries, and it doesn't bother me at all. Pisses the hell out of some Western expats, though.
* It's common for people in many East Asian countries to point out your physical blemishes or imperfections as if it's absolutely important that it be brought to your attention. For example, a co-worker in the office saying "GAAAH! You have a PIMPLE on your NOSE!" loudly enough for five other people to hear. Again, this doesn't bother me at all. Comes with the culture.
* It seems to be true in Korea (I'm not sure about Taiwan) that asking for an ingredient to be left out of a meal you're ordering in a restaurant is considered rather rude and arrogant, and what's likely to happen is that they won't say anything, but will just give you your meal complete with offending ingredient anyway. I think the customer-centric model of service never quite percolated down to modest Korean eateries. This never bothered me much, but I'm lucky that I'm not a vegetarian, I'll eat anything and I don't have any food allergies. More than a few Westerners have complained about this, and I can understand their frustration.
And what do I find genuinely rude?
* Treating foreigners like freaks, basically. This didn't bug me as much as it bugged many expats in Korea, maybe because I don't look hugely, ludicrously foreign. My face looks Western enough that I get convenience store clerks practicing their English on me and little kids saying 'Hello' to me, but I tend to dress conservatively, and I'm not so tall as to stand out noticeably. If I were extremely tall, or very dark-skinned, or blond, maybe my life in Korea would have been a lot less pleasant. From the anecdotal evidence I've heard from other foreigners, apparently other people have been less lucky.
A comment from that Marmot thread by "aaronm":
I’ve had a gutful of the rudeness here, and can relate to the animal-in-the-zoo comment in the article. Being 2 meters tall (6′8″ in the old money), broad-shouldered and blonde with blue eyes I am about as different from Koreans as shit is from sugar. Case in point, I popped out to the store behind my complex last night for a snack and was treated about as shabbily as I ever have by an entire family who looked like the Korean embodiment of the Beverly Hillbillies. The father, with back turned to me, addressing the store-owner and another customer announced I must be Choi Hong Man, whilst his inbred brats threw their mongrelized English at me and the wife stood by and snickered. Pretty much a daily occurrence where I live, which, suffice to say, is why I don’t go out much during daylight hours.Yes, that would bother me. A lot. I don't think it's that Korean culture creates that kind of behavior, as much as Korean culture doesn't do enough to dissuade that kind of behavior. American culture has reached a consensus that you shouldn't give foreigners a gratuitously hard time - people do so anyway, but at least there's a sense that you shouldn't, so the idiots who want to harass people who are different from themselves wise up and learn to keep it to themselves. In many East Asian countries, the idiots take a lot longer to learn better.
* One thing that really pisses off a lot of expats, in Korea and Taiwan and probably Japan and China too, is when locals automatically speak English with any Westerner they meet. Some Westerners interpret this as an implication that anyone with the incorrect ethnic features must be too feebleminded to understand Korean or Mandarin or Japanese. I think those foreigners have to look at the situation from the local's point of view. Westerners in East Asia who feel gratified or happy when a local speaks English to them probably outnumber Westerners who'd prefer being spoken to in the local language. So what's an English-speaking local meeting a Westerner to do?
Now, if the Westerner speaks the local language pretty decently but the local stubbornly refuses to speak to the Westerner in anything but English - that really is rude. (It's even worse if the local won't acknowledge that the Westerner is speaking the local language coherently at all.) Of course, this assumes that the Westerner really does speak the language as well as he thinks he does.
What Parties Should Do
I am going to give some advice to the two major American political parties. We need to recognize that the age of "try to get 51% of the vote this election, and the election after this one is too far away to think about" is over. And it was a crappy age while it lasted.
For the Republicans: Try to win over more African-American voters. African-Americans have been coming out to support Democrats in huge numbers since the 1960s. Is this because they have no independent minds of their own? No, it's because the GOP has been giving every indication of not caring about them. Today's GOP has had two black Secretaries of State in a row, and still gives the impression of not caring about black people. Maybe because they think that, no matter what they do, African-Americans won't vote for them.
Look, GOP. Stop insulting people by paying lip service to Martin Luther King and reminding people that you were the party of Lincoln and the Dems were the party of segregationists. Instead, do something. Reach out to black voters.
Some cynical people will say that this won't work because the GOP still benefits from the white racist vote. Southern Strategy and all that. OK, Republican Party, are you really going to let people believe that you're reliant on white supremacists for electoral success?
Now, for the Democrats: Try to win over evangelical Christians. By that, I do not mean more lip service by individual Democratic politicians about how much God means to them. I mean actually going to their churches and building up a network of support. I mean making something like the much-ballyhooed network of evangelicals Karl Rove credited with helping Bush win re-election in 2004.
If you want the Democratic Party to be progressive on social issues like gay rights, you might be very wary of this idea. But I'm not talking about letting the Pat Robertsons of the Religious Right gain influence in the Democratic Party. The deranged wing that Robertson is the public face of does not represent all conservative Christians. I don't put a huge amount of stock in old stereotypes. Recently there's been press devoted to a growing environmental movement among conservative Christians, which makes perfect sense when you think about it. (God created this world, and we must be proper stewards of it.) And surely the Democratic Party can appeal to evangelicals' sense of social welfare.
I'm not just saying all of this just because I think it's good political strategy. I'm saying it because, if the Democrats and Republicans are really big-tent parties for the whole country, it's the right thing to do. I'm sick of national parties aiming for 51% and no more.
As a disclaimer, I'm white, and about as nonreligious as one can be without becoming Richard Dawkins. But I understand that there are people in the United States who are different from me.
For the Republicans: Try to win over more African-American voters. African-Americans have been coming out to support Democrats in huge numbers since the 1960s. Is this because they have no independent minds of their own? No, it's because the GOP has been giving every indication of not caring about them. Today's GOP has had two black Secretaries of State in a row, and still gives the impression of not caring about black people. Maybe because they think that, no matter what they do, African-Americans won't vote for them.
Look, GOP. Stop insulting people by paying lip service to Martin Luther King and reminding people that you were the party of Lincoln and the Dems were the party of segregationists. Instead, do something. Reach out to black voters.
Some cynical people will say that this won't work because the GOP still benefits from the white racist vote. Southern Strategy and all that. OK, Republican Party, are you really going to let people believe that you're reliant on white supremacists for electoral success?
Now, for the Democrats: Try to win over evangelical Christians. By that, I do not mean more lip service by individual Democratic politicians about how much God means to them. I mean actually going to their churches and building up a network of support. I mean making something like the much-ballyhooed network of evangelicals Karl Rove credited with helping Bush win re-election in 2004.
If you want the Democratic Party to be progressive on social issues like gay rights, you might be very wary of this idea. But I'm not talking about letting the Pat Robertsons of the Religious Right gain influence in the Democratic Party. The deranged wing that Robertson is the public face of does not represent all conservative Christians. I don't put a huge amount of stock in old stereotypes. Recently there's been press devoted to a growing environmental movement among conservative Christians, which makes perfect sense when you think about it. (God created this world, and we must be proper stewards of it.) And surely the Democratic Party can appeal to evangelicals' sense of social welfare.
I'm not just saying all of this just because I think it's good political strategy. I'm saying it because, if the Democrats and Republicans are really big-tent parties for the whole country, it's the right thing to do. I'm sick of national parties aiming for 51% and no more.
As a disclaimer, I'm white, and about as nonreligious as one can be without becoming Richard Dawkins. But I understand that there are people in the United States who are different from me.
Wednesday, January 9, 2008
Sick of the Futures Market
Note to self: stop taking the 2008 futures market seriously.
Check out the page tracking the Democratic Presidential Nominee Race. For the final months of 2007 Clinton was way out in the lead, and few gave Obama much of a chance of winning the nomination. The night of the Iowa caucuses, Obama shot up and Clinton nosedived; the following day Obama overtook Clinton, and evidently few gave Clinton much of a chance of winning the nomination. Yesterday Clinton won the New Hampshire primary, and immediately she shot up and Obama nosedived; now few give Obama much of a chance of winning the nomination. This state of affairs is likely to continue until Obama wins the South Carolina primary, after which few will give Clinton much of a chance of winning the nomination...
Enough. The whole thing is being controlled by a hyperactive chihuahua with an IV drip of espresso. I thought that these were supposed to reflect the sane decisions of political insiders, or at least show where conventional wisdom lies. Not jerk spasmodically every time the situation changes.
For the record, at this stage I'd estimate each candidate's chances as:
49% Clinton
49% Obama
2% Miscellaneous (John Edwards, Santa Claus, Bill Richardson, Al Gore, etc.)
Check out the page tracking the Democratic Presidential Nominee Race. For the final months of 2007 Clinton was way out in the lead, and few gave Obama much of a chance of winning the nomination. The night of the Iowa caucuses, Obama shot up and Clinton nosedived; the following day Obama overtook Clinton, and evidently few gave Clinton much of a chance of winning the nomination. Yesterday Clinton won the New Hampshire primary, and immediately she shot up and Obama nosedived; now few give Obama much of a chance of winning the nomination. This state of affairs is likely to continue until Obama wins the South Carolina primary, after which few will give Clinton much of a chance of winning the nomination...
Enough. The whole thing is being controlled by a hyperactive chihuahua with an IV drip of espresso. I thought that these were supposed to reflect the sane decisions of political insiders, or at least show where conventional wisdom lies. Not jerk spasmodically every time the situation changes.
For the record, at this stage I'd estimate each candidate's chances as:
49% Clinton
49% Obama
2% Miscellaneous (John Edwards, Santa Claus, Bill Richardson, Al Gore, etc.)
The Most Astonishing Event Since the Treaty of Westphalia!
The Washington Post:
A week ago she was the bloody Democratic front-runner. She loses in Iowa, then she defies the polls to take New Hampshire - impressive, yes, but one of the most remarkable political comebacks in modern political history?
Sens. Hillary Rodham Clinton and John McCain win primaries, capping two of the most remarkable political comebacks in modern political history.Oh, come on! I'll admit I expected Clinton to come in second in New Hampshire, but does this really qualify as one of the most remarkable political comebacks in modern political history?
A week ago she was the bloody Democratic front-runner. She loses in Iowa, then she defies the polls to take New Hampshire - impressive, yes, but one of the most remarkable political comebacks in modern political history?
New Hampshire is done with
No one's called it yet, but it looks like Clinton may win the New Hampshire Primary after all. The most important effect of this is that my entry in the TrailHead Primary Pool is pretty much an unsalvagable loss now.
With Clinton still going strong, it seems official now - the race for the Democratic nomination is going to be just as much of an epic battle as the Republican race.
Also, good for New Hampshire for picking McCain. Now I want the GOP to come over to my house to explain to me why they didn't nominate McCain in 2000. This better be a damn good explanation.
With Clinton still going strong, it seems official now - the race for the Democratic nomination is going to be just as much of an epic battle as the Republican race.
Also, good for New Hampshire for picking McCain. Now I want the GOP to come over to my house to explain to me why they didn't nominate McCain in 2000. This better be a damn good explanation.
Monday, January 7, 2008
Go McCain
If Mike Huckabee can win the Republican nomination, I think he can get himself elected President. I suspect Democrats who are cheering Huckabee on in the belief that he makes the easiest opponent for Obama or Clinton are making a major mistake.
Of course I can't prove Huckabee can be elected. (On the other hand, I can hardly be proven wrong.) But I think it's safe to assume that any person capable of being nominated by a major party is also capable of getting elected President. Howard Dean would have had a chance in 2004 had he been nominated; heck, I bet McGovern in '72 and Mondale in '84 probably would have had a chance of winning if their campaigns or actual news events had progressed differently. Tim Lee makes a better case for his electability than I can.
I think a President Huckabee is totally possible. I'm not going to scream and moan about what a horrific catastrophe for all human life that would be. Huckabee doesn't strike me as a looming disaster on the horizon; in many ways, like improving impressions of the United States abroad, he would at the very least be a (small) improvement over Bush. And I suspect his social conservatism would not have an enormous practical effect on American culture. (Note the use of qualifiers such as "doesn't strike me" and "I suspect". If Huckabee is elected President and the result is an unmitigated disaster for the United States and Human Civilization, don't come complaining to me in four years.)
But I think Huckabee is electable. And he's not my preferred candidate on the GOP side, so I am not going to be rooting for him terribly hard.
Most people, myself included, suspect John McCain is the most formidable opponent any Democrat might face. I also think John McCain is the Republican candidate whom I could most easily support for President. In a head-to-head matchup between McCain and the Democratic nominee I'd vote for the Democrat, but I find McCain preferable to any of the other Republicans.
So now I'm in a somewhat paradoxical position: I'm going to be rooting and voting for the Democrat this November, whether it's Clinton or Obama or (somehow) Edwards. But I want McCain, the candidate who I believe is most likely to defeat that Democrat, to win the Republican nomination. Evidently I got some complex political calculations going on in my brain.
Of course I can't prove Huckabee can be elected. (On the other hand, I can hardly be proven wrong.) But I think it's safe to assume that any person capable of being nominated by a major party is also capable of getting elected President. Howard Dean would have had a chance in 2004 had he been nominated; heck, I bet McGovern in '72 and Mondale in '84 probably would have had a chance of winning if their campaigns or actual news events had progressed differently. Tim Lee makes a better case for his electability than I can.
I think a President Huckabee is totally possible. I'm not going to scream and moan about what a horrific catastrophe for all human life that would be. Huckabee doesn't strike me as a looming disaster on the horizon; in many ways, like improving impressions of the United States abroad, he would at the very least be a (small) improvement over Bush. And I suspect his social conservatism would not have an enormous practical effect on American culture. (Note the use of qualifiers such as "doesn't strike me" and "I suspect". If Huckabee is elected President and the result is an unmitigated disaster for the United States and Human Civilization, don't come complaining to me in four years.)
But I think Huckabee is electable. And he's not my preferred candidate on the GOP side, so I am not going to be rooting for him terribly hard.
Most people, myself included, suspect John McCain is the most formidable opponent any Democrat might face. I also think John McCain is the Republican candidate whom I could most easily support for President. In a head-to-head matchup between McCain and the Democratic nominee I'd vote for the Democrat, but I find McCain preferable to any of the other Republicans.
So now I'm in a somewhat paradoxical position: I'm going to be rooting and voting for the Democrat this November, whether it's Clinton or Obama or (somehow) Edwards. But I want McCain, the candidate who I believe is most likely to defeat that Democrat, to win the Republican nomination. Evidently I got some complex political calculations going on in my brain.
Plot Speculation
Speculation about the next few weeks in American politics now resembles fans of a TV show swapping guesses as to how this season's story arcs will ultimately play out. Noah Millman writes:
1. Mitt Romney loses New Hampshire and Michigan; functionally, he’s out of the race. He has plenty of money still, but nothing to spend it on. Everyone’s looking at the race as McCain vs. Huckabee for the nomination. Romney’s only hope is either a brokered convention (which would be unlikely to swing his way), or to be chosen as VP. But by whom? Not McCain – he hates Romney’s guts. Not Huckabee – with him it’s not personal, but what’s the payoff? But there is one candidate who could use someone with credibility with the social right and a reputation for competence and clean living. So: Romney drops out and endorses Rudy Giuliani. Which endorsement pulls Rudy back to first place in Florida, a victory he rides to a collection of bicoastal victories on February 5th and the nomination.
2. Hillary goes into free-fall in New Hampshire, and Edwards winds up coming in a surprisingly close second to Obama. Edwards roars into South Carolina, and the native son squeaks out a narrow victory over Obama as the Clinton campaign finally and completely implodes. And suddenly it becomes apparent that it wasn’t that Obama and Edwards had been splitting the anti-Clinton vote, but that Clinton and Edwards were splitting the traditional Democratic vote. And on February 5th, Edwards wins a plurality of delegates, Clinton drops out and endorses him, and Edwards rolls on to the nomination.
I don’t think either of the above will happen – these are not predictions. Just pointing out how much plot could be left in this baby.
britney spears ron paul lesbian sex nude shaved
The Freakonomics Blog is running a contest:
Despite the advice of SEO titans everywhere, we have never written headlines on this blog with an eye toward catching wayward traffic. But maybe we should start?I think the "keep it as clean as it needs to be" part's boring.
In the meantime, here’s a contest. A piece of Freakonomics schwag goes to the most engaging answer, as determined by us. Write the best headline you can think of that would suck the most traffic to a blog post. Keep it as clean as it needs to be.
01.07.2008 YouTube
Stanley Kubrick in a tender moment:
Mocking movie trailers is a cliche. But this one is just so well-done.
Mocking movie trailers is a cliche. But this one is just so well-done.
Iowa Is Indeed Powerful
That poll that showed Clinton and Obama neck-to-neck in New Hampshire? Yeah, apparently now it's showing Obama ten points ahead.
Holy crap. I like Obama and all, but did Iowa just singlehandedly pick the Democratic nominee?
Holy crap. I like Obama and all, but did Iowa just singlehandedly pick the Democratic nominee?
Sunday, January 6, 2008
Cheapo book emporium
I recently visited Mollie's Used Books in Gongguan. Mollie's has apparently acquired a whole bunch of mint-condition sci-fi and fantasy novels to beef up their English-language fiction section. They're selling for $40 each (that's about $1.20 in Amurrican money). The bad news is that the bulk of the new cheapo novels are TV/movie tie-ins and other mediocre genre fiction that I really have no interest in reading. (Has everyone heard of Sturgeon's Law?)
But there was enough quality there to make me spend a few bucks. A couple of books of David G. Hartwell's Year's Best SF series - always pretty reliable anthologies - and Vernor Vinge's A Fire Upon the Deep, reputed to be a fine example of non-crap science fiction.
I'm midway through Vinge's book, and I can say it's a "Look at this cool universe that I, the author, have thought up!" book. Fortunately it's a damn interesting universe. I have just one possible complaint. The book's full of aliens. But except for the one alien race we readers are obviously supposed to find extremely intriguing (the group-mind Tines - and they are intriguing), all the numerous aliens in this universe are about as individually interesting as the guys in the Mos Eisley cantina in the original Star Wars. Which is to say, not very.
But there was enough quality there to make me spend a few bucks. A couple of books of David G. Hartwell's Year's Best SF series - always pretty reliable anthologies - and Vernor Vinge's A Fire Upon the Deep, reputed to be a fine example of non-crap science fiction.
I'm midway through Vinge's book, and I can say it's a "Look at this cool universe that I, the author, have thought up!" book. Fortunately it's a damn interesting universe. I have just one possible complaint. The book's full of aliens. But except for the one alien race we readers are obviously supposed to find extremely intriguing (the group-mind Tines - and they are intriguing), all the numerous aliens in this universe are about as individually interesting as the guys in the Mos Eisley cantina in the original Star Wars. Which is to say, not very.
I Love Polls
I'm simultaneously living in a world where polls show Obama 12 points ahead of Clinton in New Hampshire and a world where polls show Obama and Clinton tied in New Hampshire.
This makes it very difficult to be a political junkie. At least I know it has nothing to do with actual real life.
This makes it very difficult to be a political junkie. At least I know it has nothing to do with actual real life.
Opinions
For some reason, the top story in the Taipei Times yesterday was this utterly domestic American story about evolution/creationism in the public schools. Why the Taipei Times considers this above-the-fold news, I have no idea.
Excellent quote from one "Ruth", who is described as a missionary:
More evidence that, that when people explain their opinions, all they're trying to do is sound somewhat smart or intelligent at that exact moment in time. They're not trying to say something that makes sense. Or something that will sound smart or intelligent five minutes in the future.
Excellent quote from one "Ruth", who is described as a missionary:
"I've never seen an ape turn into a human. It is not observable."Totally apart from making no scientific sense (c'mon, this isn't about science), Ruth's quote is remarkable because, if she were to apply that way of thinking across the board, she'd find it mighty difficult to do any kind of missionary work. Or be religious.
More evidence that, that when people explain their opinions, all they're trying to do is sound somewhat smart or intelligent at that exact moment in time. They're not trying to say something that makes sense. Or something that will sound smart or intelligent five minutes in the future.
Saturday, January 5, 2008
TrailHead Primary Pool
I will admit that I actually entered the TrailHead Primary Pool at Slate.com. And I screwed my entry up with Iowa - I figured the Democratic first, second, and third place finishers would be Obama, Clinton, Edwards (it was Obama, Edwards, Clinton, and the order is important). And I figured the GOP top three would be Huckabee, Romney, McCain (in reality: Huckabee, Romney, Thompson).
Well, I wasn't all THAT far off. And only one guy actually got Iowa 100% correct, so I may still pull ahead if my predictions for later contests are more accurate than his.
Well, I wasn't all THAT far off. And only one guy actually got Iowa 100% correct, so I may still pull ahead if my predictions for later contests are more accurate than his.
Not Much Trash Talk
John Scalzi has a comment thread up to talk about the Iowa caucus, and I must say I'm pretty happy with the results. 40 posts so far, and so far there is no trash talk along the lines of "George Bush is mentally deficient even by bonobo standards!" or "Barack Hussein Osama will open the gates of this country to TERRORISTS and falafel sellers!"
Except maybe for comment #18, which at least is all literary. And comment #29, which I have to admit I don't fully understand.
Just try getting this low level of trash talk at Politico or at a mainstream news site that allows comments! Reflects well on Scalzi's site, it does.
Except maybe for comment #18, which at least is all literary. And comment #29, which I have to admit I don't fully understand.
Just try getting this low level of trash talk at Politico or at a mainstream news site that allows comments! Reflects well on Scalzi's site, it does.
Friday, January 4, 2008
Fact and Fornication
Daniel Drezner has announced the results of his contest, to find the worst single sentences that his professor readers have ever seen in a student paper.
And I think I have a new sigline:
The Civil War lasted no more than four years, but the red and blue blood that was spilt will last a life time.
And I think I have a new sigline:
The Civil War lasted no more than four years, but the red and blue blood that was spilt will last a life time.
And Iowa Is Done With...
Lately I'd been thinking that Clinton might vanquish her foes and wrap it up early, but now it looks like the Democratic race is going to be a hell of a Clinton-Obama battle.
I think the biggest loser among the major candidates is John Edwards. He did better in Iowa than Clinton, but I get the feeling he'd been counting on a first-place finish. Now Obama is the big story, and the anti-Clinton forces in the Democratic Party are going to coalesce around Obama. I don't see much being left for Edwards. Clinton can afford to come in third place. I'm not sure Edwards can afford to come in second.
Meanwhile, the Republican race is a great big mess. It's not even less of a mess than it was before Iowa. The one thing that would have simplified matters would have been Fred Thompson doing so badly he had to quit the race, and that doesn't appear to have happened.
I think the biggest loser among the major candidates is John Edwards. He did better in Iowa than Clinton, but I get the feeling he'd been counting on a first-place finish. Now Obama is the big story, and the anti-Clinton forces in the Democratic Party are going to coalesce around Obama. I don't see much being left for Edwards. Clinton can afford to come in third place. I'm not sure Edwards can afford to come in second.
Meanwhile, the Republican race is a great big mess. It's not even less of a mess than it was before Iowa. The one thing that would have simplified matters would have been Fred Thompson doing so badly he had to quit the race, and that doesn't appear to have happened.
Thursday, January 3, 2008
Something My Girlfriend and I Have Actually Discussed
Who is less interesting: Fred Thompson or Gordon Brown.
Iowa Is A Go
I have to (shamefully) admit that I'm looking forward to the Iowa caucuses, much the same way that a sports fan looks forward to a really important game. And I don't even have much emotionally invested in the outcome - it's really just an intellectual interest.
I don't think it's right that Iowa and New Hampshire have such disproportionate influence in selecting party nominees. But they do - in 2004 the Iowa caucus killed Richard Gephardt's campaign outright and may have fatally wounded Howard Dean's. And the New Hampshire primary a few days later firmly established John Kerry as the Democratic front-runner, and none of his rivals was able to dislodge him.
How did we come to select party nominees so early in an election year? In 1968 Robert Kennedy still had not secured the nomination when he was killed in June. In 1976 it was not certain that the GOP would nominate Gerald Ford until Ford finally emerged victorious at the convention in August - and he was the incumbent! Then Bill Clinton wrapped up the Democratic nomination in April 1992, George W. Bush secured the GOP nomination in early March 2000, and John Kerry vanquished John Edwards at about the same point in 2004.
Now it seems possible that this year we'll know who the nominees are before the end of February. Of course, it's also possible that we won't, especially if the GOP vote splits every which way, as currently seems likely. Or if a truly epic war breaks out between Clinton and either Obama or Edwards (presumably one will quit and then endorse the other).
Well, I'm sitting halfway around the world in Taiwan, and I'm going pop some popcorn, grab a beer, and follow this election campaign with every bit of the interest it deserves.
I don't think it's right that Iowa and New Hampshire have such disproportionate influence in selecting party nominees. But they do - in 2004 the Iowa caucus killed Richard Gephardt's campaign outright and may have fatally wounded Howard Dean's. And the New Hampshire primary a few days later firmly established John Kerry as the Democratic front-runner, and none of his rivals was able to dislodge him.
How did we come to select party nominees so early in an election year? In 1968 Robert Kennedy still had not secured the nomination when he was killed in June. In 1976 it was not certain that the GOP would nominate Gerald Ford until Ford finally emerged victorious at the convention in August - and he was the incumbent! Then Bill Clinton wrapped up the Democratic nomination in April 1992, George W. Bush secured the GOP nomination in early March 2000, and John Kerry vanquished John Edwards at about the same point in 2004.
Now it seems possible that this year we'll know who the nominees are before the end of February. Of course, it's also possible that we won't, especially if the GOP vote splits every which way, as currently seems likely. Or if a truly epic war breaks out between Clinton and either Obama or Edwards (presumably one will quit and then endorse the other).
Well, I'm sitting halfway around the world in Taiwan, and I'm going pop some popcorn, grab a beer, and follow this election campaign with every bit of the interest it deserves.
Straightforward Jocularity
One of the five English comic strips the Taipei Times runs every day is Zippy the Pinhead.
And I am constantly terrified that some Taiwanese person speaking broken English is going to come up and ask me to explain the humor.
And I am constantly terrified that some Taiwanese person speaking broken English is going to come up and ask me to explain the humor.
Tuesday, January 1, 2008
Happy New Year
The Taipei New Year's fireworks display is set off from Taipei 101.
These pictures were taken at five minutes to midnight at the intersection of Jilong and Xinyi Roads, Taipei.
And the fireworks go off:
These pictures were taken at five minutes to midnight at the intersection of Jilong and Xinyi Roads, Taipei.And the fireworks go off:
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
