But I noticed there was a bunch of spam advertising Viagra and cheap nudes on some old story threads, so instead I just installed MT-Blacklist (awsome plugin, too bad it has to exist), and filtered out the spam. I'll write write what I originally intended to later. Gads I hate those people...
We shipped Panther. on friday. Its quite a release. I actually volunteered to help out at the Apple Store Valley Fair, along with several other people. It was an amazing sight to behold. Tons of people bought Panther, iPods, Macintoshes, you name it.
Yesterday I had dinner with Matt, then I helped Sarah copy some files, and watched the Matrix Reloaded. And played Cribbage for the first time in at least two years. I have this very distinct muscle memory from playing SET, so I kept grabbing cards I shouldn't have, but it was a lot of fun.
Various blogs I read have been discussing the upcoming supreme court case. The opinions run quite a wide spectrum, so I feel sort of like joining in.
Chuq has argued that this is being done by a small group of aethists that is try to assert their rights over others by interpretting the constitution in an absolutist manner. I disagree. I am culturally jewish, though I do not believe in god, so I suppose that make me a techincal aethist. I don't know that I ever believed in god, I know I certainly didn't by the end of elementary school. My thoughts really come down to two points:
First, the phrase "under god" structurally implies a belief in a monotheistic entity, which could be construed as offensive to both aetheists and polytheists. Therefore I can see the argument against it, but I would not disagree with a phrase along the lines of "under that which each of us holds sacred" or some other less specific statement. In other words, the current phrasing is absolute, which makes the absoluist argument seam a bit absurd.
The other, more salient point is that when the pledge was written it did not contain the phrase "under god," despite the fact that it was written by a Presbyterian minister (Francis Bellamy). The words were added in 1954 after a campaign spearheaded by the Knights of Columbus. In other words, there is a very specific, absolutely christian intent, that runs contrary to its original form. I wonder if the same groups who are so upset now argued against the change then, seeing as the absolutist argument was equally valid then...
I realize I did not mention the recent allegations against Schwarzenegger in my last post. Its my belief they are true, though I do not know to what extent he transgressed. But I have not seen the evidence, nor has he been formally charged/convicted of anything, so for the time being I am not using them as part of my logic. If he is guilty he should be punished to the full extent of the law, but in the US one is innocent until proven guilty, regardless of how repugnant the crime is..
Well, the recall is almost upon us. I am voting no, because I feel the whole thing is horribly disruptive and just a bad idea, but I have sort of mixed feelings. I do not feel Arnold is particularly qualified. He is a Republican, which means I am likely ideologically opposed to his platform, but since he is not really expressed many significant views I can't evaluate it objectively. I do know the one major thing he has claimed he will do, bring in accountants and magically balance the budget, is impossible though.
California's voter initiative system allows for a lot of directly voter controlled issues. It also allows a lot of people who don't have long memories or deep understanding of economics meddle with things they really should not. Prop 13 (which limits property taxes) makes it hard to get a stable revenue source. Prop 42 removes (which earmarks gas taxes for public transit) removes money from the general budget. Props 98 (which makes it impossible to ever reduce education spending) and 184 (3 strikes and your out) cost a fortune. Are they bad things? No. But we (and when I say we I am taking on a lot of responsibility, since I was not in fact not living in California when any of those were passed), the electorate have emasculated the state legislature. They are required by statute to spend somewhere between 60%-80% of the budget on particular voter initiatives. Which means that the entirety of the overage has to be excised from what is left of the budget, potentially as little as 20% of the budget. It can't be done. And it is our (the voter's) fault.
So, now that we have established that not only is budget crisis not the governor's fault, but also that it is unlikely the governor can fix it, we can draw some conclusions.
Given the above analysis, I think I may want Schwarzenegger to win. It seems he is really stupid enough to want to jump into this flaming heap of shit. If it can't be solved anyway, and whoever is in office is going to end their political career, then I see it as an ideal opportunity to take care of Schwarzenegger problem now.
Well, the recall is almost upon us. I am voting no, because I feel the whole thing is horribly disruptive and just a bad idea, but I have sort of mixed feelings. I do not feel Arnold is particularly qualified. He is a Republican, which means I am likely ideologically opposed to his platform, but since he is not really expressed and significant views I can't evaluate it objectively. I do know the one major thing he has claimed he will do, bring in accountants and magically balance the budget, is impossible though.
California's voter initiative system allows for a lot of directly voter controlled issues. It also allows a lot of people who don't have long memories or deep understanding of economics meddle with things they really should not. Prop 13 (which limits property taxes) makes it hard to get a stable revenue source. Prop 42 removes (which earmarks gas taxes for public transit) removes money from the general budget. Props 98 (which makes it impossible to ever reduce education spending) and 184 (3 strikes and your out) cost a fortune. Are they bad things? No. But we (and when I say we I am taking on a lot of responsibility, since I was not in fact not living in California when any of those were passed), the electorate have emasculated the state legislature. They are required by statute to spend somewhere between 60%-80% of the budget on particular voter initiatives. Which means that the entirety of the overage has to be excised from what is left of the budget, potentially as little as 20% of the budget. It can't be done. And it is our (the voter's) fault.
So, now that we have established that not only is budget crisis not the governor's fault, but also that it is unlikely the governor can fix it, we can draw some conclusions.
Given the above analysis, I think I may want Schwarzenegger to win. It seems he is really stupid enough to want to jump into this flaming heap of shit. If it can't be solved anyway, and whoever is in office is going to end their political career, then I see it as an ideal opportunity to take care of Schwarzenegger problem now.