Hermetic Physics

Below you'll find the wholly-remarkable (if only for the curiousity of why I wrote it down in the first place) ramblings of a, well... er, uhm, whatever I am. Yes, there are a lot of quizzes - consider it self-psychoanalysis... but you'll also find some gems of wisdom from yours truly.


Well, "gems of wisdom" a rough phrase meaning "rant against idiocy."


PLEASE NOTE SOME ENTRIES ARE LISTED (unfortunately) "FRIENDS ONLY," as a little more of my life has been spreading around the Academy than I thought was appropriate. ;-) If you think I could be a better person by adding you to my friends list, drop me a line. By doing so, you'll get the juicy, disturbing, frightening, and I'd-frankly-not-like-to-get-fired bits that are left out of the public version. :-)


In any case, remember the rules:
1) Read and comment all you want, but if you start throwing sarcasm my way, make sure you're prepared to drown in it.
2) I'll say some things that will offend you. I use LJ as a way to be honest with the world (one of the few venues I have available to me), and I can't afford to PC my way around the more thorny bits.
3) If you can't handle lots and lots of News from the World of Science - slowly back away now.


Fortunately, I started LJ late enough that I could retrace and add tags. As I add more to the journal, I'll include them here... so feel free to jump directly to what interests you.

Hey gidster,
darknspooky cross-posted this on an email list I'm on... I thought you'd find it interesting. Of course, darkbobeep may drool as well. ;-P

Someone who knows Palin

'kay... I've tried to hold all this in, but LJ (unfortunately for you) gives me a space to vent without the constant threat of the secret service wrestling me to the ground.


forward: This is gonna be on terrorism. If that squicks you out, skip out now. It's also going to make a few folks mad at me. If you want to continue thinking that I'm Jesus-Christ-on-a-Bicycle, skip out now. ;-) Ooh, ooh! I can practice the lj-cut so as not to otherwise annoy innocent (as if any of YOU are innocent) bystanders.
<tr>
Please click below to proceed... oh, and please forgive typos... this is a rant, not a thesis. ;-):
( Read more... )


This has been a public service announcement.
And remember kids, never eat a live wolverine. REMEMBER: STOP THINK AND PAUSE, BEFORE EATING ANYTHING LIVE, WITH CLAWS.

and to tell you how "all over the board" I am politically, I couldn't decide on which president to choose - Carter or Reagan. ;-) (well, it was a choice between 2 of them, and Clinton wasn't in the running :-P)

You Are 47% American

America: You don't love it or want to leave it. But you wouldn't mind giving it an extreme make over. On the 4th of July, you'll fly a freak flag instead... And give Uncle Sam a sucker punch!

Grrr... 6 years ago I would have told you that this place had its share of dark-moments and follies, but there was nowhere else that was better (or even-matched for that matter). Today, I could mention several countries that are quickly creeping up on us. ;-) It was nice to hear that I was at least pushing the 50% mark. If I were to drop below the 25% cut-off, I'd be stressed out that I didn't have the cash to uproot and move. LOL

After seeing Vargr's notice about our newest "anti-child porn" legislation, "The EFF commentary on: Why the DOJ's 2257 Regulations Aren't "Just a Porn Problem", and appreciating (gross overstatement) the broad over-generalization of what the federal government considers "sadistic and masochistic" (remember, wearing a collar can be, with the right lawyer, be called masochistic), I dug through the actual statute. On page 29617 (yes, you read that right) of 28CFRPart75, RIN 1105-AB05 "Inspection of Records Relating to Depiction of Sexually Explicit Performances, I found something interesting (well, its all interesting if you have a few hours to spare...): towards the end, in a subsection is titled "Description and Estimates of the Number of Small Entities Affected by This Rule," they claim that the number of recipients affected by this new rule would remain unchanged from previous rules enforcing child-pornography laws. Frankly, I don't think the government expected this ruling to cover bloggers. I'm not saying that it doesn't cover bloggers... just that I don't think they *intended* for it to cover them. Of course, I wouldn't put it past them to go after bloggers, either. :-/ ([insert redneck]"Well... we gots the law right here. Lets go gets us some perverts!"[/insert redneck])
There are close to 7 pages (small font, 3 columns) dedicated to 'public response to proposed legislation'. Not one of them brought up even the concept of internet journalism, whether professional or amatuer. The closest brush with relevancy (which I could find) was a complaint that websites that sell porn, and thus display the pictures from the movie/magazine covers, would fall under the same requirements to keep data on performers as would the original producers - in which case the federal lawyers said (paraphrase) "it would be to difficult to distinguish the two w/o leaving large loopholes in the law for primary recipients," and left the statute as it stood.
Hundreds of issues and complaints came in. Not one mentioned any concern of blogging, journalism, and/or other non-entrepreneurial posting.

I also recognize that several people closer to the workings of Capitol Hill feel that this covers all of us (well, 'all of us' meaning 'those that choose to do so'): i.e. display a picture displaying anything from subsection (2) of TITLE 18 > PART I > CHAPTER 110 > § 2256 in your blog, and you'll need to keep records of all persons depicted in said photo, as well as have posted hours of when the Feds can come checking in on them.
If it seems that I'm not terribly concerned about this, I'll let you know that this is the 2nd time in nearly 37 years I've put some serious thought into moving to Canada. :-/ For the meantime, however, I'm concerned enough (if not for me personally, then certainly for my sub-culture - freaks and geeks need to stick together!) to keep a close eye on this, as I'm sure others more qualified than I will be doing as well.

The optimist in me (what little there is) hopes that this will blow over, and not affect non-profiteering outfits. The pragmatist in me (all 1023 of them) expects that this might just be yet another hammerfall on those that don't fall in the (professed) mainstream - whether by nature or choice.

I normally don't spout politics very often. Not because I don't keep up with it, nor because I don't care... but mainly because there is no way of winning an argument with it. Politics have nothing to do with facts, and everything to do with opinion - and two different ppl from different sub-cultures can have vastly different opinions about the same fact.
Having said this, Cloris made an entry this morning that got me thinking...

Bush's speech last night held zero surprises for anyone who was interested. Bush has a war going on. Bush wants the public to support the war. Bush has an agenda (not a bad word in itself) that he believes will win it.

Bush also says things that most of MY sub-culture recognizes as complete and utter garbage: thinly veiled spin-doctoring, mis-representation of statistics, small omissions, etc. Does he expect us (i.e. my subculture) to fall for his version that easily?

I don't think he (or rather his speech writers) does. I do think he (or his speech writers) thinks that the same folks that elected him will, however... and that has been his aim from the beginning. He won with the barest smidgen over 50% in 2004 in one of the largest voter turn-out years in modern history, yet he called it a "mandate from the people" from day 1. He *had* to call it that, or he'd lose credibility from even his own people. Folks like to think they are in the majority, and certainly don't like to think they are nearly outnumbered. From G.W.'s position (and think about it, there is a logic there), if he keeps talking to HIS people, it doesn't matter if the rest of us recognize what is going on... America is a democracy, and majority rules.

Let me say that again. Majority Rules. Personally, I think that is a strength of America... as it keeps the government from falling out of the mainstream. In most administrations, it's a blessing, as the majority is often just that: a majority. Unfortunately for Mr. Prez, *his* majority is just 2 microns over 50%. Normally when a minority gets marginalized, there's some steaming and complaining and WAITING for the next administration (remember the Clinton years?), but here we have a different animal. We have 2 microns shy of 50% steaming and complaining and feeding their own frustration with popular support.

What G.W. is doing is following the age-old wisdom passed down from Prez to Prez. Talk to the people (read: majority of people) and you'll avoid most of the bumps. As a member of the populace, I suspect that its pretty damn cool when you are a member of the majority. :-) Unfortunately, my particular sub-group (and most of you will resonate with this one) is often stuck down in the dregs of political awareness.

::sigh:: It's way too early and my brain isn't thinking properly. Ramble ramble ramble.
The nutshell:
Cloris, he doesn't expect us to believe him. Frankly, I don't think he cares if WE believe him. Half of the country does, however, and that is important (both for true stability and for his continued political future).
The bright spot is that although 50% voted for him last year, in reality I think it was 50% voting *against* Kerry. The majority that Bush sees isn't what he (again, or his speech writers) thinks it is. More people see through the haze than he suspects - including generals, senators, congressmen, etc. Note that over 80% of his initiatives have been falling through. Every day the news brings reports of how 'disappointed' the administration is with some republican official for not "toeing the line." Take hope, little trooper - the more he spouts off, the less likely a bush-clone will make it into the White House in 2008. Just 1 year into his presidency has proven that he probably won't have the political muscle to do much damage at home. Our only worry is keeping the global damage to a manageable crisis.

There are worse people to have in office - although for the life of me I can't remember their names at the moment. lol
So I suppose that means that there isn't MUCH worse of a person to have. ;-)
"We the People" elected the sad little man, though. "We the People" will have to think a bit harder next time around before doing this again.