Thursday, November 22, 2007

The amount of blogs out there giving advice to bloggers is amazing. All these so-called 'experts' giving all this advice.

Let me tell you something of a small secret: I've been online since before what is now the Internet took off. I started on BitNet, which was the university kludge system that attempted to mimic what the military had. My cousin was on the committee that decided to privatize NSFnet, the basis of today's internet (btw, James J Exon had far, far more to do with creating the internet than Mr Enviromentalism who only put his signature on the bill as a cosponsor).

So, what's the point of the 'establishing credentials' schtick? Simple: I've been around for a darn long time and here is my advice to bloggers: ignore advice.

The sites I administer for work are rated something like 2 million + in Alexa. But, when you are looking for information on the City of Omaha, we have the official page. When you are looking for the Douglas County Sheriff's office, we have the official page.

Page ranking and all that jazz may soothe your ego, but if you provide real information, you will be found.

Now, if you may notice not very many people probably come here, because I don't advertise like a mad fiend like most bloggers. Frankly, I don't care. I'm doing this more to vent and if people find this site, great. That's one reason why I don't have comments enabled. It's similar to why Rush Limbaugh hardly ever has a guest interview on the radio: his show, and thus like my blog, is about the person who is hosting. I know this may seem a bit selfish, but why taint my page with views I may or may not agree with? I just can't see it. It also opens up to flamewars, something I am really, really sick of in my life.

So, I suggest bloggers stop attempting to have their rears kissed by the adoring public and just do what comes naturally - writing, pontificating, etc.

As I sit here, I'm reading a number of articles on 'Intelligent Design'. This is one of those fustrating issues where people on both sides are arguing semantics instead of pointing out what something really is.

1) Sorry those on the right, Intelligent Design is NOT a scientific theory.
2) Sorry those on the left, Intelligent Design is a way for those with religious beliefs can reconcile them with scientific discoveries. It is, by nature, anti-atheist and will remain that way because...
3) Atheists cannot dispute the theory, no matter how hard they try and ridicule it.

Yes, I have always believed in what is now called Intelligent Design since 1st grade when I first started hearing about the Theory of Evolution in science class. It wasn't even a 'doctrine' yet, but it has always been what I've believed. There is absolutely no place where there are infinite monkeys on infinite typewriters typing Shakespeare. That's the kind of hokey randomness the atheists want us to believe. I'm sorry, but the universe has way too many 'laws' that cannot have been created randomly at the spur of the moment.

But a number of advocates of Intelligent Design want it taught in school. Uh, sorry, but Intelligent Design is something that honestly needs to be taught in church, not school. Not that I agree with what is currently taught in school, because I have also believed from the start that atheism, though it claims to be the absence of religion, is a religion itself because of that. Because you cannot prove one way or another that it is right. Just like any religion cannot be proven it is technically right until you die and you discover which religion is correct...but since you're dead, you can't really come back and tell us which religion is correct barring phony parlor tricks (which, since phony, won't tell you anything anyways).

So the resolution to this entire thing is for both sides to back off. Back off pushing Intelligent Design as something to be taught in schools, and back off attacking Intelligent Design with insults like the 'Flying Spaghetti Monster'. Teach Intelligent Design in Bible study class in church, and the decline of religion amongst youth may get reversed. But if both sides continue down the same path, then nothing is going to get accomplished.

Until you die, then you will find out the truth.

Oh, and atheists: if you are going to support the Muslim extremists, you may want to reconsider your vocal comments about 'Flying Spaghetti Monsters'. You see, that's an insult to Islam as well as Christianity, if not moreso. To the extremists, that's a death sentence which only serves for you to find out more quickly the truth than you probably want to know.

Wednesday, November 21, 2007

I listen to the Mike and Mike show on ESPN radio in the morning while getting up and heading to work. Today, Mike Golic, the ex-Philadelphia Eagle was trying to explain how side bets/bounties work in the locker room and why they are not bad things.

He failed miserably on part two.

This all comes about as the NFL is investigating the Green Bay Packers on side bounties made before the Minnesota Viking game, basically promising money if the Packers defense held Adrian Pedersen under 100 yards rushing. Pedersen, of course, got injured during the game.

Now, I think what Golic was trying to justify is a bounty like the one above: hold someone under x amount of yards, intercept the football x times, etc. get some pocket cash for dinner that night. I don't really see an issue with a bounty like that. In fact, in the card game of Legend of the Five Rings has national bounties for like 'highest ranked Dragon player, I'll give X'.

However, a bounty like 'take Pedersen out', I have issues with. Because of his rambling, I don't know if Golic feels the same about paying to deliberately hurt someone. He implied that the infamous 'bounty game' between the Eagles and Cowboys was 'okay'. That game featured one of those 'cause injury' bounties I have a problem with (in this case, it was a bounty on the kicker who had switched teams in the offseason).

This sort of bounty needs to be, at minimum, discouraged. At most, whomever made the bounty needs to be charged in criminal court for assault.

Tuesday, November 20, 2007

Have you ever had a moment where you just have to do a double-take and go 'what'?

I just had one after seeing the headline: Clinton Sharpens Attack On Obama's Experience

Okay, Hilary. I don't like you, and would vote for any except Kucinich in the Democratic pileup before you, but this is a losing strategy. A one and a half term Senator telling Obama he doesn't have the experience. Meanwhile, sitting in the race is Senator Joe Biden. Biden, like McCain on the Republican side, holds the true experience card.

If Biden had the brains, he should strike with that card and pummel both Obama and Clinton with it, and pummel them hard. Of course, he won't because he's just a shill in the race to help Clinton win instead of a legitimate candidate in my opinion.

Monday, November 19, 2007

A friend of mine has written a module for the Heroes of Rokugan campaign, and we're trying to arrange when my usual gaming group can play it. I'm really proud of him, and that makes at least six friends I can name off the top of my head that have published in the gaming world one way or another.

I, personally, have more than one thing that I was paid for and despite the fiasco involved in the first couple of things (see my webpage for the full story on that), I still have the writing bug. I've been writing numerous things already for my Heroes of Rokugan character and John (the author above) has mentioned trying to do a module together.

Now, before you ask: I'm almost 40, and yes, I've been a role playing gamer for more years than many gamers have been on the Earth. It has not been easy dealing with people whose political leanings I agree with for the most part attacking gaming. The problem is ignorance breeds fear, when it is not justified. It is an all together different thing when you are not ignorant and still have a fear of something.

But one thing I fear is collaborating on any more writing projects, due to my past experiences. It doesn't help that I can get too detail oriented and nitpicky for my own good. For example, it isn't enough that I create a game world for a campaign, but I have to go all the way to having the statistics for the clerics of the religions. I'm also, obvious by reading this blog, very politically minded, however my gaming group is not.

I'm still probably going to take John up on his offer. I really like the game setting and the politics involved in the campaign, so I think I have something to contribute to it.

It is rare for me to have pain a number of days in a row. Wednesday, of course, I had a kidney stone. That's real pain. However, over the weekend I've had pain in my neck that continues until today.

It's enough pain that even a fairly powerful pain killer cannot get rid of it completely. So, tomorrow...off to the doctor I go. Third time in six days I get to fork over examination fees.

My other pain is psychological. I really hate being a spendthrift, but some stretches it happens to me. The past two weeks have been one of those sprees, and I know it will catch up with me soon enough. Luckily, I am not one of those foolish people that must go out the day after Thanksgiving and spend my heart out. Of course, I'm doing it a week early, but I guess I will survive. Well, I will if this pain goes away.

Sunday, November 18, 2007

You know, I think there is a lot of confusion out there on terms and terminology.

I think a lot of 'liberal' bloggers out there really are 'libertarians', but have been taught incorrectly as to what they really are.

The problem is with the word 'liberal'. That term no longer has the classical definition. For that, I actually blame the neo-conservatives. This confusion has people not understanding what they really believe in.

'Conservative' is also now defined differently than it used to be as well, again adding to the confusion.

I'll give a couple of examples of this:

1) A 'liberal' is for more government control, whereas a 'conservative' is for less government control, especially in the way of economics. Now, this is almost exactly the opposite of what the textbook definitions say. A textbook 'liberal' wants liberty, and as much freedom to do what they want. Meanwhile, a 'conservative' wants status quo, at minimum, and to hold back the reigns of liberty to impose order.

Under textbook definition, I'm a liberal. Yet, I'm labeled a 'right wing' or 'conservative', thus I fall into using those terms myself.

2) Many who call themselves 'anarchists' on the left support government-enforced equality, and thus are called 'liberal'. Again, anarchy is freedom to do what you want, without any government control. Wouldn't you think that would then be closer to 'capitalism', which is by textbook the freedom of companies and individuals to work within the economy how they want? Should they not, then, be the biggest BACKERS of Wal-Mart and Microsoft, instead of the biggest detractors?

It also confuses the fact when the two parties at the beginning of the United States were the Whigs (conservatives by textbook) and the Democratic-Republicans (liberals by textbook). By World War I, the Whigs were gone and replaced by the Republicans, and the Democrats had merged with the 'Populists', thus their philosophies switched on economic but not social issues. This has muddied the waters so bad, it has confused just about everyone.

Now, to muddy it even further: the National SOCIALIST German Workers Party is labeled at the 'far right' by those today calling themselves 'liberal'. But, they were socialists...it's right in their name. Plus, they were formed by a labor union. This is textbook 'conservative', but it is not modern 'conservative'...it's modern 'liberal'!

Thus, I think all the tags out there need to be revised. Stop with the Orwellian double talk, and get things straightened back to their original, textbook, terms and I think a lot of people will reconsider just exactly what they really are.

That might just be the way to get this country, and the world, straightened around.